P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) IN all these cases, the vehicles of the petitioners which were having All India tourist permits or State wide contract carriage permits were seized on the allegation that the vehicles were carrying individual passengers picked up at different places and running as stage carriages contrary to the conditions of permit. In some cases the vehicles covered by motor cab permits were seized on the ground that they were unauthorisedly plying as contract carriages beyond the permitted seating capacity. The petitioners approached the concerned Transport authority for release of the vehicles under S. 207 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions filed or otherwise. In the first two cases, the Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary R. T. A. , Hyderabad ordered release of the vehicles on the following conditions :"1. The appellant shall give an undertaking that he will not sell, alienate, encumber or hypothecate the vehicle during the pendency of the enquiry. 2. HE shall produce the vehicle on every Friday at 11-00 am before the MVI, RTA, Hyderabad during the pendency of enquiry till the case is disposed of. 3. HE shall give a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 29,475. 00 valid for a period of 6 months or till the enquiry is completed. 4. HE shall also deposit an amount of Rs. 2,500 in cash, which would be refunded if the enquiry results in his favour. "

( 2 ) THE petitioners in the said two writ petitions are mainly aggrieved by the condition directing the bank guarantee to be furnished for the estimated tax. In some other cases, for instance, W. P. No. 26158 of 1999 etc. , the petitioners were directed to pay the estimated difference tax and compounding fee "to consider his application for release of the vehicle". In certain other cases, it is the allegation of the petitioners that they were orally directed to pay the estimated differential tax applicable for stage carriage as a condition for release of the vehicle. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed questioning the action of the respondent concerned in not releasing the vehicles unless tax as estimated is paid or bank guarantee is furnished therefor.

( 3 ) INITIALLY, the writ petitions came up for hearing before a learned single Judge - Sudershan Reddy, J. The learned Judge formulated the question as follows :"the short question that arises for consideration is as to when the tax payable becomes due in respect of the motor vehicle. Whether the respondent could seize the vehicle at all for non-payment of difference of tax on the ground that the vehicles were being used as express stage carriages. It involves interpretation of S. 8 of the Taxation Act read with S. 207 of the M. V. Act"

( 4 ) THE learned Judge felt it appropriate and proper to have an authoritative pronouncement of a Division Bench with regard to interpretation of S. 8 of A. P. M. V. Taxation Act together with S. 207 of M. V. Act so that some broad parameters are laid down by this Court. That is how the writ petitions are before this Bench.

( 5 ) SECTION 8 of the APMV Taxation Act empowers the prescribed Officer to seize and detain the motor vehicle where any tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid as specified in S. 4. Section 4 deals with the payment of tax and grant of licence. Section 4 enjoins that the tax levied under the Act shall be paid in advance and in the manner specified in S. 11 either quarterly, half yearly or yearly within 15 days from the commencement of the quarter, half year or year as the case may be. However, the tax levied under proviso to S. 3 (2) shall be for the life time of the motor vehicle and be paid in advance in lump sum. Sub-section (3) of S. 4 provides that where the tax in respect of a motor vehicle is paid for a particular period the authorized Officer shall grant the licence in the prescribed form to use the motor vehicle in any public place in the State during the sai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document