Back
2001 Supreme(AP) 425
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.ANANDA REDDY, S.R.NAYAK
M.R.S.Maha Lakshmi - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Transport Commissioner of Secretary - Respondent
Decided On : 04-17-01
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963 - Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 - Sought to quash the demand notice – Stoppage report filed - Petition of cetiorari is sought to quash the demand notice issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary Regional Transport Authority - Respondent herein demanding payment of tax ofor the quarter ending for the vehicle bearing registration and for consequential direction to the respondent to refund - Motor vehicle and the said vehicle is covered by All India Tourist Permit submitted a stoppage report to the 1st respondent informing that the bus was stopped for carrying out certain repairs - When the matter stood thus, the respondent directed the respondent to conduct surprise verification of stoppage reported by the owners of the vehicles covered by All India Tourist Permits and State wide contract carriage permits - respondent conducted a surprise verification at the reported place and after verification submitted a report to the 1st respondent reporting that the subject vehicle of the petitioner was not found at the reported - covered by valid permit - As per the instructions camped surprise check was conducted for verification of stoppage referred to above. During such check Inspector in the reference 2nd cited - Reported that the vehicle has not been found at the reported place it is assumed that the Stoppage Report filed by the Registered owner - Respondent while he was returning from the reported place after conducting surprise verification, that the respondent did not obtain any written statement either from the watchman or from the son of the petitioner who were present at the workshop and that the usage of the vehicle was not established in any manner and requested the 1st respondent to drop further action in pursuance of the show cause notice - Petitioner along with the explanation enclosed a receipt for having received an amount of towards charges for towing of the subject vehicle from Mechanical Works - Respondent on consideration of the report of the respondent as well as the explanation offered by the petitioner issued impugned demand notice calling upon the petitioner – Held, Motor Vehicle Inspector on except stating that the subject vehicle was stopped for the repairs of the vehicle and it was under stoppage he has not disclosed any materials or reasons on basis of which he has recorded such a finding which has the direct effect of contesting the correctness of the findings recorded by the Motor Vehicle Inspector who personally visited the place - It is also quite strange as highlighted by the learned Government Pleader for Taxes that there was absolutely no good reason for directing the Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector to submit one more report particularly when the Motor Vehicle Inspector who visited the place had submitted two reports on earlier occasions - Be that as it may as already pointed out supra judicial review is not against the decision as such, but only against the decision making process and this Court while reviewing the administrative statutory action under Article cannot act as an appellate authority and reappreciate evidence and substitute its own opinion in place of the opinion of the administrative or statutory even in a case where two opinions are possible on the basis of the same set of facts and evidence – Court do not find any merit in the writ petition warranting our interference - Petition is therefore dismissed.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition, of cetiorari is sought to quash the demand notice D/- 28-2-2000 in R. No. 6432/a3/96 issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, the 1st respondent herein demanding payment of tax of Rs. 87,500. 00 for the quarter ending 30-6-1997 for the vehicle bearing registration No. TN 01/n -27 and for consequential direction to the 1st respondent to refund the of Rs. 29,167. 00 paid under protest on 2-5-1997. 2he petitioner is the owner of the subject motor vehicle and the said vehicle is covered by All India Tourist Permit No. TVP/13/99 valid upto 4-2-2001. The petitioner on 31-12-1996 submitted a stoppage report to the 1st respondent informing that the bus was stopped from 31-12-1996 for carrying out certain repairs. When the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to conduct surprise verification of stoppage reported by the owners of the vehicles covered by All India Tourist Permits and State wide contract carriage permits. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent conducted a surprise verification at the reported place on 24-4-1997 and after verification submitted a report to the 1st respondent reporting that the subject vehicle of the petitioner was not found at the reported place i. e. , Sri Venkata Ramana Auto Mechanical Works, Police Station Road, Opp. Kalyana Man-dapam, Jawahar Auto Nagar, Vijayawada-7. Therefore, on the basis of the report submitted by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice D/- 2-5-1997 in R. No. 64322/a3/96. It reads. "office OF THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER: VIJAYAWADANOTICER. No. 64322/a2/96d/- 2-5-1997sub:- Motor Vehicles - Contract Carriage Bus TNO1/n-27 - Stoppage report filed - Vehicle Not found at reported place - Reg. Ref:- 1. S. R. filed on 31-12-1996
( 2 ) SPECIAL Check D/- 24-4-1997 of the M. V. Inspector___in the reference 1st cited, a stoppage report was filed in respect of C. C. Bus TN 01/n-27 covered by valid A. I. T. permit. As per the instructions of the J. T. C. (V and E, S. T. A. Hyderabad camped at Vijayawada on 24-4-1997, a surprise check was conducted for verification of stoppage referred to above. During such check, the M. V. Inspector in the reference 2nd cited, reported that the vehicle has not been found at the reported place. Hence, it is assumed that the Stoppage Report filed by the Registered owner is not genuine report in respect of his bus, for which the Registered owner is liable to pay full tax for the said period under A. P. M. V. T. Act and Rules 1963. Therefore, the Registered owner of the vehicle is hereby called on to show cause as to why full tax for the period from 1-1-1997 to 30-6-1997 as applicable to the category of the vehicle shall not be collected from him, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this show cause notice, failing which ex parte action will be taken basing on the material available on records. Licensing Officer,vijayawadatosmt. M. Rama Sita Maha Lakshmi,w/o Rama Krishna, Vallurivari Street,chowdaripet, Krishna Lanka,vijayawada-3"the petitioner filed his explanation on 17-6-1997 stating that the vehicle was shifted to another shed for engine repairs only by towing; the said information was communicated to the 2nd respondent on 24-4-1997 while he was returning from the reported place after conducting surprise verification, that the respondent No. 2 did not obtain any written statement either from the watchman or from the son of the petitioner who were present at the workshop and that the usage of the vehicle was not established in any manner and requested the 1st respondent to drop further action in pursuance of the show cause notice. The petitioner along with the explanation enclosed (i) a receipt for having received an amount of Rs. 500. 00 towards charges for towing of the subject vehicle from Sri Venkata Ramana Auto Mechanical Works, Police Station Road, Opp. Kalyana Mandapam, Jawahar Auto Nagar, Vijayawada- 7 to M/s
