The main legal point established in the judgment is that demand notices for tax must be issued with proper consideration, reference, and evidence, and in compliance with principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned demand notice dated 27th September, 2003 bearing No. RGN issued by the second respondent vide annexure A, by holding that the same is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, whimsical, passed without jurisdiction, capricious and in violation of Articles 14, 19{l) (g) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Further, he has sought to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay motor vehicle tax in respect of the earth moving vehicles used solely in the mining or factory areas of the petitioner and that the second respondent is not entitled to demand and levy motor vehicle tax in respect of the aforesaid earth moving vehicles. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 9. 13. 200/- along with interest.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a unit of M/s. Grasim india, a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of cement in its factory situate at Aditya Nagar, Sedam, taluk, Gulbarga District. Limestone is the essential raw material required in the manufacture of cement and for the purpose of obtaining the said limestone, the petitioner has entered into a mining lease with the state Government by paying royalty. Further, the case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner owns certain dumpers, shovels. for klift, pay loaders, cranes and excavators for mining purposes within the factory premises or the mining area. Be that as it may. The second respondent issued the Impugned demand notice, demanding motor vehicles tax in respect of the vehicles namely 04 dumper R. and 02 JCB. The said demand of the motor vehicles tax under the karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act' (hereinafter called the 'act') on the abovesaid vehicles is contrary to law on the ground that, the vehicles in question are not plying on public road. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence to show that heavy vehicles owned by the petitioner are being plied on the public road. In the absence of any such evidence, it is not open to the second respondent to demand payment of tax from the petitioner in respect of the vehicles in question, referred above. These vehicles have been used exclusively within the private premises of the petitioner. Therefore, the second respondent cannot subject the vehicles in question to tax. The impugned demand of tax is illegal, unsustainable, and is liable to be quashed as the same is violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India in view of illegal demand notice issued by the second respondent, which is contrary to the material on record. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing these petitions.

( 3 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the impugned demand notice issued by the second respondent is contrary to law and the same is illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Further, he submitted that, the vehicles in question are purported to be used within the existing quarry and factory premises of the petitioner and at no point of time, the vehicles in question have been plying on the public road, nor it is the case of the second respondent that, the petitioner has been plying the vehicles in question on public road and the petitioner is liable to pay the motor vehicles tax. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the respondents have not considered the mandatory provision of Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said provision excludes the motor vehicles of the kind owned and used by the petitioner from the operation of the provisions of the act, as regards liability to pay motor vehi- cles tax. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of R. Pampapatghi v. Senior Inspqctor of Motor Vehicles, RTO, Hospet reported in ILR (1996) Kant 348