2kumaraswamy Mining Company, Bellary vs The Deputy Commissioner for Transports, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga and Another

This writ petition by owner of a goods vehicle bearing Registration No. MEK 9136 is about the liability fastened on the petitioner to pay motor vehicle tax on the said vehicle for the period 1-2-1991 to 31-1-2005 in terms of the demand notice at Annexure-A.

It is the version of the petitioner that the vehicle had been parked during this period in a place with permission granted by the authorities for such purpose and that it had not been operated on the roads and therefore, exemption granted will enure to the benefit of the petitioner and the demand is not justifiable.

The authorities sought to justify the demand on the premise that the petitioner had filed an application dated 12-8-2004 for cancellation of the Registration Certificate in respect of the vehicle in question and when, as a follow up action, an inspection took place on 18-11-2004, the authorities found that the vehicle which had been permitted to be parked in a particular place was not bearing the same chassis number as had been indicated in the application filed by the petitioner seeking for parking and exemption of tax and it is due to this reason, the authorities have cancelled the exemption granted in favour of the petitioner and demanded the tax payable under the Act right from the quarter during which the vehicle was permitted to be parked upto the date of the order and it is this period which covers from 1-2-1991 to 31-1-2005.

Appeal preferred by the petitioner to wriggle out this liability, under Section 15 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 before the Deputy Commissioner for Transports, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga did not produce any favourable order and therefore, the present writ petition.

Notice having been issued, respondents are represented by Smt. Niloufer Akbar, Additional Government Advocate. Statement of objections have also been filed on behalf of the respondents.

Heard Sri Sundararaja Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

The limited submission canvassed by Sri Sundararaja Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Tulunadu Finance and Development, Vidya Ratna Building, Udupi v Regional Transport Officer, Udupi and Another, 2007(2) Kar. L.J. 187,the authorities are not justified in demanding tax for a period prior to the date of inspection on which day, they have not found the vehicle at the particular place and that extending the presumption that the vehicle was not available for the entire period, when there is no dispute that the vehicle with the very chassis number was available at the place of parking during the earlier inspection, an inference that it is not so available can only be from the date on which it is actually found to be so and not from an earlier point of time and this question had been settled in the above case and therefore, the authorities are wrong in calling upon the petitioner to pay tax for the period prior to the date of inspection i.e., before 18-11-2004, the date from which the vehicle was stationary.

While the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents does not dispute the ratio in Tulunadu Finance case and that if it is applied, the petitioner cannot be saddled with tax liability for the period prior to the date of inspection from which day the vehicle was actually found to be not available, also submits that an additional circumstance in this case which may disentitle even such benefit is that the petitioner had addressed a letter to the department indicating that the vehicle is stolen and on such premise, had sought for wriggling out the liability, which is a clear case of admission that the vehicle was not parked at the particular place which was the responsibility of the petitioner and therefore the demand is justified.

Countering such submissions, Sri Sundararaja Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the material in support of his submission, points out that this is a development indicated in the letter dated 30-3-2005 which is subsequent to the period for which demand is made, and addressed by the petitioner to the authorities indicating that the vehicle is found stolen and therefore, it cannot have any bearing on the version of the petitioner.

A perusal of the record does indicate this is so. It is for the authorities to independently examine with regard to the liability for the subsequent period and to take such action which can also be defended by the petitioner and that is not an issue as of now before this Court. Subject-matter of this writ petition is with regard to the demand for payment of tax for the period 1-2-1991 to 31-1-2005 and if the ratio of Tulunadu Finance case is applied, the petitioner''s tax liability can be confined to only on and after the quarter of 1-11-2004 and not for any earlier period.

Accordingly, the demand insofar as it relates to the period between 1-2-1991 and 30-10-2004 stands quashed. Respondents are at liberty to enforce the demand for the subsequent period i.e., from 1-11-2004 onwards.

Writ petition is allowed to this extent only.

Rule is issued and made absolute.