AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—Heard both the parties.
The petitioner in the above writ petition has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order
passed by the first respondent in R. No. 6115/A22/87 dated 14.1.1988 and quash the same and direct the respondents to refund the excess tax
paid over and above 3/4th of tax paid in respect of stage carriage bearing Registration number TML 6239 to the petitioner herein.
According to Mr. K.M. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was plying a stage carriage bearing registration number
TML 6239 for which they paid a sum of Rs. 26,220 as a full tax for half year ending upto 31.3.1985 on 8.10.1984, subsequently the above said
vehicle was replaced by another vehicle bearing registration number TML 2092 with effect from 13.10.1984. Thereafter the tax endorsement
made to the said vehicle TML 6239 was cancelled in R. No. 3045/A4/84. Subsequently the said vehicle was replaced by a spare bus TMN 5263
with effect from 25.10.1984 and revised tax endorsement was made by the Regional Transport Officer, Madurai in R. No. 36928/A7/84, dated
25.10.1984. The said vehicle has been utilised as a spare bus with effect from 25.10.1984 onwards. Ever since the said vehicle TML 6239 was
made as a spare bus, the said vehicle is to be taxed at 3/4th of tax payable to a regular stage carriage. The petitioner therefore, applied for refund
of tax to the second respondent who rejected the application in and by its proceedings in R. No. 80614/A2 of 1984 dated 30.6.1987.
Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, who dismissed the appeal in and by
his proceedings in R. No. 6515/A2 of 1987 on 14.1.1988. Hence the above writ petition.
Mr. C. Thirumaran, learned Government Advocate reiterated the averments stated in the counter-affidavit and contends that there is no
provision in the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 to refund any type of difference of tax.
I have considered the submission of both the sides. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to Section 13(2), which reads as follows:-
Where any tax is paid by mistake or in excess, the tax so paid or collected shall, on an application made within such period, be refunded to such
person in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
Therefore, it is clear that the said section provides for refund to tax.
In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has not plied the impugned bus as a stage carriage at all with effect from 25.10.1984, but they plied
it only as a spare bus. If that is the case, the petitioner is entitled for the revision of tax, which they have paid in excess for plying the regular bus.
The respondents instead of going into the merits of the case in this aspect have erroneously come to the conclusion that they do not have the
power to refund the tax in the instant case.
In view of the admitted facts that the petitioner was plying the impugned bus with effect from 25.10.1984 onwards, only as a spare bus but not
as regular stage carriage, there cannot be any dispute that they are eligible for refund of tax paid in excess. Therefore, failure to exercise the
powers conferred on the respondents u/s 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 vitiates the impugned proceedings.
Hence the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. There will be no order as to costs.