(Justice V.V.S. Rao)

The petitioner is owner of Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.KA-01-MC 8332. He had purchased the car in the State of Karnataka with the financial assistance provided by Reliance Capital, Bangalore. He paid life tax of Rs.39,463/- vide challan No.CF/3092133, dated 25.8.2007 and obtained registration of his vehicle from the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore (Central). In the Registration Certificate his address is shown as M/s.Mahima Silk Sarees, 12/2/Saibaba Market, O.K. Road, Bangalore which is his cloth business shop.

It appears that he also had a branch, of his cloth business, at Puttaparthy, Andhra Pradesh. He, admittedly, regularly visits Puttaparthy for his business. On 16.4.2010 when he was proceeding to Puttaparthy in his car from the workshop at Anantapur, the second respondent checked the vehicle and also his cell phone numbers. In the Vehicle Check Report (VCR), the second respondent alleged that, on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was residing near Chitravathi Road of Puttaparthy in Anantpur with mobile No.9491355021. It was also alleged that the vehicle was “kept for use” in Andhra Pradesh and, therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay tax under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (the Taxation Act). The first respondent, then issued show cause notice dated 19.4.2010 asking the petitioner to explain within seven days as to why life tax of Rs.32,300/- with penalty of Rs.20,680/-(total Rs.52,980/) should not be collected from him for plying the vehicle in Andhra Pradesh without payment of the life tax due to the State. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.5.2010. He alleged that he is a resident of Karnataka State; he already paid life tax in the State of Karnataka; merely because he got several SIM cards of various States, and he moves throughout India, he cannot be treated as a resident of Andhra Pradesh. Along with the explanation he also made an application for release of his car. On 07.5.2010, the first respondent issued orders directing release of the vehicle on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.53,618/- by way of demand draft; to produce the vehicle every Monday; and to file an undertaking that he will not alienate or encumber the vehicle till disposal of the case. The petitioner did not comply with the conditions nor did get the vehicle released. Be that as it is, the first respondent issued final demand notice dated 19.7.2010 confirming the demand of life tax and penalty. The first respondent also recorded a finding that the petitioner was residing in Andhra Pradesh, and though the vehicle was registered in State of Karnataka, he was regularly using the same in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Assailing the demand notice, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned notice as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential directions. The petitioner contends that he is a resident of Bangalore and, therefore, life tax on his car cannot be levied and collected under Section 3 of the Taxation Act merely because he is using a local mobile number of Puttaparthy. According to him when once he pays life tax to the State of Karnataka, he is exempted from paying tax in the State of Andhra Pradesh. For this purpose he drawn support from the Government notification vide G.O.Ms.No.601, Home (TR-II), dated 27.3.1963.

On our request, the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Harinath Gupta, appeared and made submissions. Before dealing with the submissions, it is necessary to notice the defence from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. He states that the petitioner intentionally avoided registration of the vehicle in the State of Andhra Pradesh and avoided payment of life tax under Section 3 of the Taxation Act read with Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act). Therefore the vehicle was seized on 16.4.2010 under Section 8