G. Velavan vs Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Heard.

The petitioner was operating a stage carriage holding a transport permit for his route bus bearing Registration No. TN 28/ 1490 for the route

Harur to Dharmapuri (Via) Gopinathampatti Junction Road, Thenkaraikottai, Ramayanalli, Sinthalapadi, Kadathur and Odasalpatti Junction Road.

Another vehicle, which is a spare bus bearing Registration No. TDM 1995, is covered by a spare bus permit, which is intended to maintain

substitute service in place of the route bus during breakdowns and also to perform service to meet the special needs.

Tax in respect of the spare bus was paid for the quarter ending 31-3-1994. In order to rebuild the body of the spare bus, the petitioner filed a

stoppage report to the respondent on 1-3-1994, Intimating that the spare bus will be stopped for repair from 1-3-1994 to 20-3-1994 with an

initial fee of Rs. 25/- for stoppage of service for the said period. As the vehicle could not be repaired by 20-3-1994, the petitioner submitted a

stoppage report for the spare bus only on 22-6-1994 that the said spare bus could not be operated till 1-7-1994. Alleging that the petitioner ought

to have obtained prior permission under Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules for non-operation of the said spare bus, the

respondent, by proceedings dated 23-6-1994, demanded a sum of Rs. 18,900/- towards motor vehicle tax for the quarter ending 30-6-1994.

Hence, placing reliance on the decision in Gopu Transport, Madras-83 v. R.T.O., Madras West, reported in 1994 Writ LR 263, the petitioner

seeks the issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri, the respondent

herein, in R. No. 11242/83/94 dated 23-6-1994 and to quash the same on the ground that the failure to obtain prior permission, as contemplated

under Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, by itself, even though could be a ground for suspending the permit, cannot be the

basis for demand of the impugned tax and contends that in any event the petitioner has not been given a reasonable opportunity as contemplated

u/s 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.

That apart, this Court in Gopu Transport, Madras-83 v. R.T.O., Madras West, reported in 1994 WLR 263 has held as follows :

According to Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, it shall be a condition of the permit of every transport vehicle will be so

maintained as to be available for the service for which the permit was granted for the entire period of currency of the permit and that the permit is

liable to be suspended or cancelled after due notice to permit holder if the vehicle has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was

granted for a continuous period of more than ten days during the period for which the permit authorise the use of the vehicle on the road, unless the

holder of the permit had obtained in writing the prior permission of the Transport Authority to suspend the service of the vehicle for a specific

period exceeding ten days. Thus, Rule 172(6) is only a condition of the permit and any violation of the permit condition would lead to cancellation

or suspension u/s 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 172(6) cannot be invoked to collect tax under a different statute viz., Tamil Nadu

Motor Vehicle Taxation Act.

Admittedly, the petitioner had not obtained any prior permission for plying the impugned spare bus from 21-3-1994 nor filed any stoppage

report to that effect as contemplated under Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules by Initiating proceedings u/s 86 of the Tamil

Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. But still, in my considered opinion, the said failure to submit the stoppage report for the spare bus bearing

Registration No. TDM 1995 from 21 -3-1994 cannot be a reason to demand the tax of Rs. 18.900/- for the quarter ending 30-6-1994, even

without a show cause notice and an enquiry as contemplated u/s 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, which reads as

follows :

Section 15-A:

Recovery of tax which escaped assessment. Where for any reason, the whole or any portion of the tax which would have been payable in respect

of any motor vehicle under this Act for any period has not been paid, the licensing officer may, at any time, within a period of five years from the

expiry of the period to which the tax relates, and after Issuing a notice to the registered owner or the person having the possession or control of the

motor vehicle and making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, direct such owner or other person to pay the whole or any portion of such

tax, which has not been paid:

Provided that in computing the period of five years for the purposes of this section, the period or periods, if any, during which the collection of such

tax has been stayed by an order of any Court shall be excluded.

Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the failure to obtain prior permission for stopping the vehicle, as

contemplated under Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, by Itself, cannot be the basis for demand of the impugned tax, even

though the respondents are empowered to suspend the permit for such failure.

Hence, assuming that the respondent proposes to recover the tax which escaped assessment for the quarter ending 30-6-1994 for the impugned

spare bus. Section 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 requires the respondents to Issue notice to the registered owner

or the person having possession or the control over, the motor vehicle and make such enquiry. A reading of the proceedings does not disclose that

the respondent has taken such steps, namely, issuing a show cause notice or holding an enquiry in that regard before passing the impugned notice

dated 26-5-1994, demanding a sum of Rs. 18,900/-towards the impugned motor vehicle tax for the quarter ending 30-6-1994. Hence, the

impugned proceedings is violative of Section 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974.

For the reasons discussed above, I am obliged to quash the impugned proceedings, and accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.

Consequently, W.M.R No. 16646 of 1994 is closed.