AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge who has declined to set aside the endorsement issued by the authorities demanding tax for the whole year to be paid at one lump sum. The appellant is the holder of an All India Tourist Omni Bus Permit issued u/s 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 issued by the State Transport Authority, Nagaland, Kohima passing through the states of Assam, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry. The permits are valid upto 26.02.2018. Authorization has been issued in accordance with Rule-83 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 upto 26.02.2014 and the authorisation fee is for one year. The appellant approached the respondent for acceptance of tax u/s 3(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (for short ''the Act). He wanted to pay tax quarterly. The respondent issued an endorsement dated 07.05.2003 to pay the tax u/s 3(1) of the Act, for the entire period of authorization instead of quarterly tax. Against the said endorsement, the appellant preferred writ petition before this Court. Learned single Judge was of the view that when the authorization is for one year period, the tax has to be paid for one year at once and not quarterly, as requested by the appellant and therefore, he dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court.
Sri B.R. Sundara Raja Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned order of the learned single Judge as well as the endorsement issued by the authorities contended that though the interstate permit is issued under the Central Act and the authorization has been issued under the Central Rules, the tax payable is under the Act. Section 3 is the charging section. Tax is payable u/s 3(1) of the Act. However, Section 4 of the Act gives an option to the owner of the bus to pay the tax quarterly, half yearly or yearly. Therefore, the authorities were not justified in rejecting the request of the appellant for payment of tax quarterly. Therefore, he submits that the case for interference is made out.
Per contra, Smt. Sujatha, Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent submits that as per Rule 83(2) of the Rule, the tax is payable before the issue of authorization. If the tax is not paid before authorization, Rule 83(2) provides for payment of tax before the vehicle enter the State. This Rule do not provide for payment of tax quarterly or half yearly. Therefore, authorities were justified in insisting on payment of entry tax for an year before the vehicle enters the State and therefore, order passed by the authority as well as the learned single Judge is in accordance with law and no case for interference is made out.
In the light of the aforesaid facts, the point that arise for our consideration is that:
In the case of interstate permit, when the permit holder undertakes to pay the tax directly to the concerned State Transport Authority, at the time of entry in its jurisdiction, the said payment of tax could be made as contemplated u/s 4 of the Act that is, quarterly or half yearly.
Section 88 of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for interstate permits. A permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been counter signed by the Regional Jurisdictional Authority of that other region and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other state unless counter signed by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. Sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the Act, provides that any State Transport Authority may for the purpose of promoting tourism, grant permits in respect of the tourist vehicles valid for the whole of India or any such contiguous States not being less than three number including the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified in that permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the application. Subsection (14) of Section 88 of the Act, empowers the Central Government to make Rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act. Accordingly, the Central Government has framed Central motors Vehicles Rule, 1989 (for short referred to as ''the Rule''). Chapter 4 deals with control of transport vehicles and tourist permits. Rule 82 of the Rules provides for granting of tourist permits. Rule 83 of the Rules deals with payment of authorization fee. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 83 of the Rule provides every authorization shall be granted in Form 23-A, in case the certificate of registration is issued on smart card or shall be granted in Form No. 47, in case authorization is in paper document mode subject to the payment of tax or fees, if any, levied by the concerned State. Therefore, the tax payable is under the relevant State Act. On payment of such taxes, the authority which granted the authorization shall issue the permit holder separate receipts for such taxes or fees in respect of each bank draft and such receipts shall be security printed watermark paper carrying such hologram as may be specified by the concerned State or Union Territory. Sub-rule 2(A) provides that the authority which grants authorization shall intimate the State Transport authorities concerned the registered number of the motor vehicle, name and address of the permit holder and period for which the said authorization is valid. The period of validity of a authorization shall not exceed one year at a time. However, if the permit holder does not pay the taxes before obtaining the authorization, he has the liberty to undertake to pay the tax directly to the concerned State Transport Authority at the time of entry in its jurisdiction. In that event, the authorization expressly stated that it has been issued subject to payment of taxes in the concerned State Transport Authority. Therefore, under the Scheme of these Rules, the tax payable under the State Act is payable either before authorization is given or before the entry of the vehicle to the State. Insofar as Karnataka is concerned, payment of tax is governed by Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1957. Section 3 is the charging Section. If the tax is payable for a period less than 30 days, the rate of tax payable is as provided in Part(B) of the Schedule. However, if the period for which the vehicle to be plied in the particular State is more than 30 days, then the tax payable would be at the rate mentioned in Part-A in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act. Section 4 of the Act deals with payment of tax, which provides that the tax levied u/s 3 shall be paid in advance by the registered owner or person having possession or control over the motor vehicle for a quarter, half year or year at his choice within 15 days from the commencement of quarter, half year or year as the case may be. Therefore, an option is given to the registered owner to pay taxes in installments such as quarter or half year. However, Rule 83 provides for payment of the tax payable under the Act before grant of authorization. Therefore, the tax payable before issue of authorization depends upon the period for which authorization is sought. In other words, whatever is the period, one year being the maximum, the tax payable is for the period of authorization. If the permit holder does not pay tax before issue of authorization and undertakes to pay tax directly to the concerned State Transport Authority at the time of entry in its jurisdiction, the tax payable before issue of authorization shall be paid before the vehicle enters the State. Therefore, this rule provides for payment of tax under the Act in lumpsum depending upon the period of authorization. Whereas Section 4 of the Act gives an option to the registered owner to pay tax quarterly, half yearly. Such a option is not provided under these Rules. This Rule being framed by the Central Government in pursuance of the Central legislation over rides the provisions of the State Legislation. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that though the authorization sought for is for one year, by virtue of Section 4, the registered owner has a choice of making their payment in installments such as quarterly, half yearly cannot be denied as without any substance. The authorization, which is a condition precedent for plying tourist vehicle in several States is granted under the Central legislation. That legislation provides for payment of taxes either before grant of authorization or before the entry of the vehicle within the State. It does not provide for any payment in installments such as quarterly, half yearly. Therefore, to that extent, the said provision is inconsistent with the provision contained in Section 4 of State Act. It is the Central legislation which applies. That is what the learned Single Judge has held and that is what the authorities are trying to enforce. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge.
No merits. Dismissed.