Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Rajasekhara Murthy
SACHIDANAND S.S.KAKODKAR - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT - Respondent
W. P. 24872 Of 1981
Decided On : 11/29/1985
Advocates Appeared :
H.L.DATTU, M.R.V.ACHAR
Counter-signature - Inter-state Transport - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 63 - The court discussed the interpretation of the agreement of 1974 and its impact on the requirement of counter-signature for inter-state transport permits. The court relied on Clause 10 of the agreement and previous case law to determine the exemption from tax payment for the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner operated a stage carriage on an inter-state route without obtaining the counter-signature from the State Transport Authority of Karnataka. The demand for tax payment by the State of Karnataka was challenged by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to exemption from tax payment under the reciprocal agreement of 1974, despite the failure to obtain counter-signature. The court quashed the tax demand and declared the petitioner's entitlement to exemption.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was liable to pay tax due to the State of Karnataka for operating on the inter-state route without obtaining the counter-signature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the validity of the permit should be judged in the light of the terms of the agreement between the two governments and not solely by applying the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the tax demand and related orders were quashed. The petitioner was declared entitled to exemption from tax payment for the relevant period. Another prayer for a Mandamus was dismissed by the court.
( 1 ) PETITIONER is a resident of Goa and was operating a stage carriage under a permit issued by the transport Authority of Goa Administration on the inter-state route between Sadashivagad in karnataka and Marmagao in Goa. The petitioner was operating on this inter-state route for over 18 years prior to the date of filing of this Writ Petition. A part of the route that lies in Karnataka state is about 8 Kms. from the State border of Goa upto Sadashivagad.
( 2 ) THE said permit had been countersigned by the Transport Authority of Karnataka up to 14-6-76 after the merger of the Portugese Territory with India. By virtue of an arrangement entered into between the two Governments, the petitioner was exempted from payment of tax to the State of Karnataka.
( 3 ) WHILE the petitioner continued to operate on the said inter-state route, it was noticed by the secretary of the Karnataka State Transport Authority that the petitioner had operated on the route without obtaining the counter-signature of the State Transport Authority between 14-6-76 and 11-6-1981. His request for counter-signing the permit from 11-6-1981 onwards was therefore withheld since he was found operating without obtaining the counter-signature during the earlier period.
( 4 ) HOWEVER, by an order of this Court made in the Writ Petition on 29-10-1981 the order of the d. T. C. , Belgaum (Annexure-F) was stayed subject to furnishing security for the sum demanded as per Annexure-A.
( 5 ) IT appears, the permit was counter-signed for the subsequent period 11-6-81 to 30-8-82. It is relevant to notice that from 30-8-82 all the private operators were eliminated and the inter-state routes were taken over by the State Transport undertaking of both the States as per a reciprocal agreement entered into between them.
( 6 ) THE subject-matter of this Writ Petition is the demand made by the R. T. O. , Karwar, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,41,589 00/- due to the Slate of Karnataka for the period 14-3-76 to 23-5-81 during which period the Petitioner had operated on the inter-state route without obtaining the counter-signature from the STA of this State.
( 7 ) AGAINST the said demand, the petitioner filed an appeal before the D. T. C. , Belgaum. By his order dated 17-10-1981 the appeal was dismissed and the demand as per Annexure-A was confirmed with some modifications.
( 8 ) IN this Writ Petition the order of the D. T. C. , and the tax demand notice are challenged by the petitioner on several grounds.
( 9 ) THE sole ground on which the petitioner is called upon to pay the tax to the State of Karnataka is that he had operated on the inter-state route without obtaining the counter-signature from the sta of this State. After the merger of Portugese Territory with the Union of India, for the first time, an agreement was entered into between the two States on 10th October, 1974. The said agreement was published by the State Government in Karnataka Gazette dated 10-10-1974 as required under Sub-section (3b) of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
( 10 ) THIS agreement provided for grant of new permits, continuance of old permits, exemption regarding tax and all other related matters. The operators who plied their vehicles in the inter-state routes were governed by the terms of the said agreement. All the stage carriages which were being operated on the existing inter-state routes as on the date of the agreement, were permitted to operate under the agreement, subject to certain conditions contained in the said agreement. The route from Goa to Sadashivagad was one of the inter-state routes on which the goa operators were permitted to continue and the petitioner was one among them.
( 11 ) SRI M. R. V. Achar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the several clauses of the agreement of 1974, has opposed the demand made as per Annexure-A. In particular, he relies on Clause 10 of the agreement under which the Peti
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
