Telangana High Court
WP/22839/1999 of Mohd Sadiq Ali Vs The Licensing Officer on 29 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22839 of 1999 Between: Mohd Sadiq Ali S/o.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO : 22839 of 1999
Between:
Mohd Sadiq Ali S/o. Mahmod Ali
National Travels Office, Shikwadi, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Licensing Officer Karimnagar, Office of the Regional TransportOfficer Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.
2 The Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (Enforcement) Nellore, Officerof the Regional Transport Officer, Nellore, Nellore District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue a Writ or order or direction particularly one in thenature of Writ of CERTIORARI by calling for the records from the file of theIst respondent in R.No: 1590/A2/98 and QUASH his demand noticedated: 5.10.1999 made therein, demanding a sum of Rs.1,22,500/- asdifference of tax, from the petitioner for the quarter ending 31.12.1998 inrespect of his contract carriage bus AP-20-T.333 and to grant such otherrelief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just in thecircumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.VENKATA RAMANA
Counsel for the Respondent No.: SPL GP FOR TAXES
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE
GODA RAGHURAMAndTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICEP.V. SANJAY KUMAR
W.P.No. 22839 of 1999
Oral Order: (Per: GR, J)
The petitioner’s vehicle – a contract carriage busbearing registration No. AP-20-T.333 was inspected,detained and seized on 28-12-1998 while proceeding fromGudur to Karimnagar on the ground that it was plying withoutpermit and for other violations. The permit expired on 27-12-1998. Assailing the seizure, the petitioner filed W.P.No.36627 of 1998. The writ petition was disposed of on 30-12-1998 directing release of the vehicle in favour of thepetitioner on his depositing a sum of Rs.5,000-00 andfurnishing an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle pendingfinal orders to be passed by the authorities. The vehicle wasreleased on 31-12-1998.
The respondent issued a show cause notice dated 31-12-1998 calling upon the petitioner to show cause whyan amount of Rs.1,27,500-00 should not be collected at therate of Rs.2,500-00 per seat per the quarter ending 31-12-1998 for having plied the vehicle without payment of taxwhen checked on 28-12-1998. The petitioner submitted hisexplanation thereto inter alia pleading that the respondentsfailed to deduct from the determined tax liability of thepetitioner an amount of Rs.56,249-00 paid by the petitioneras tax on the vehicle for the quarter ending 31-12-1998 as also an amount of Rs.510-00 paid towards regular tax (i.e.,without deducting an amount of Rs. 56,759-00).
In the writ petition, by the order dated 02-11-1999 inW.P.M.P.No.28624 of 1999, this Court granted interim stayof the demand by the 1[st] respondent on condition of thepetitioner depositing a sum of Rs.33,000-00 within a periodof four weeks. Belatedly though and on seekingcondonation of the delay, the amount of Rs.33,000-00 issated to have been deposited by the petitioner, incompliance with the conditional interim order passed by thisCourt.
According to the petitioner, of the total tax demandedat Rs.1,27,500-00, an amount of Rs.5,000-00 was alreadydeposited; the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of theamount of Rs.56,759-00 representing the pro rata tax andregular tax paid for the quarter ending 31-12-1998 and isfurther entitled to take credit for the amount of Rs.33,000-00paid pursuant to the conditional interim order passed on 02-11-1999 in this writ petition.
Conclusion
Eventually, the liability of the petitioner under theimpugned demand notice is thus Rs.32,741-00. Though thepetitioner specifically alleged in Ground-G of the writ petitionthat he has paid the pro rata tax of Rs.56,249-00 and theregular tax of Rs.510-00 for the quarter ending 31-12-1998and is entitled to take credit therefor, the counter affidavitdoes not dispute this contention and claim of the petitionerand on application of the principle of ‘non-traverse’, thepetitioner is seen entitled to take credits for these paymentsmade. Accordingly, the petitioner’s resultant liability as per the impugned demand notice is recorded as Rs.32,741-00(Rupees Thirty two thousands seven hundred and forty oneonly) and the petitioner shall be liable to pay the said amountin favour of the 1[st] respondent. The writ petition is disposedof accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
GODA RAGHURAM, J
Dated: 29-12-2008Pvks
_________________________
P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J