Back
2010 Supreme(Kar) 515
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANA GOUNDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE
Nafiza Sultana
Versus
The Secretary, R.T.A. & Another
Writ Petition No.15565 of 2007
Date of Judgment : 21-04-2010
For the Petitioner:Puttige R. Ramesh, Advocate. For the Respondent:E.S. Indresh, HCGP, C. Mohammed Sabhanulla Shariff, Advocate.
Headnote:KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION ACT, 1957 - Section 14: [N.Kumar, Mohan Shantanagoudar & A.S.Pachhapure, JJ] Non payment of Tax - Effect - Held, Section 14 of the Taxation Act declares what is the consequence of non-payment of tax on the validity of the permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act. Taxation Act has received the assent of the President on 13th November 19957. Therefore, Section 14 of the Taxation Act has the over-riding effect to the extent mentioned in the aforesaid provision viz. the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the permit and consequences of non-payment of tax. It is clear from Section 14 of the Act that, if the tax or the instalment due in respect of a transport vehicle is not aid within the prescribed period, the validity of the permit for the vehicle shall become ineffective from the date of expiry of the said period. Therefore, the permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act will be in force for the period granted as long as the permit holder is making payment of tax as required under the law. If the tax is not paid within the stipulated period, the validity of the permit shall become in effective. In other words, it ceases to be in-operation. Further, If the permit holder commits default in payment of tax, the statute declare was his permit to be ineffective from the date of such default till the said payment of tax is made. The moment the tax is paid, it becomes effective. This by operation of law the permit becomes ineffective and invalid for non-payment of tax, and consequently the permit holder is deprived of all rights and benefits accruing from such permit. However, once tax is paid, ineffective and invalid permit becomes effective and valid, by the operation of law. No written order is required. That is the scheme of the Taxation Act. [Judgment of Division Bench in the case of Sreenivasa Reddy vs Secretary, Mysore State Transport Authority in W.P.No.1851/1972, does not lay down correct law].
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 83 & Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, Section 3: [N. Kumar, Mohan Shantanagoudar & A.S. Pachhapure,JJJ] Application under - Replacement of the vehicle in the place of the vehicle covered by the permit -Rejection of application due to non-payment of tax in respect of the vehicle covered under the permit - Effect of non-payment of tax - Held, The effect of non-payment of tax is that the permit granted shall be ineffective. The holder of a permit is not entitled to replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature, under Section 83 of the M.V. Act, without paying the tax due as on the date of the application on the vehicle to be replaced. Admittedly the petitioner or the owner of the vehicle covered under the permit has not paid tax which is legally due. Therefore, on the date of application for replacement of the vehicle there was no valid permit, the existence of which is a condition precedent for grant of permission to replace the vehicle. The petitioner is not entitled to the permission to replace the vehicle as the permit granted to her was ineffective for non-payment of tax. Further, Where an application is made for replacement of the vehicle under Section 83 of the M.V. Act, the condition precedent for permission to replace the vehicle is, there should be a valid permit on the day the application is made, because it is the holder of a permit alone who is eligible to make such an application. The permit holder should possess a valid permit. In order to find out whether the permit holder has a valid permit or not, if the authorities insist on either payment of tax or proof of tax paid receipts in respect of the vehicle covered under the permit it cannot be found fault with.
Kumar, J.
This writ petition is placed before this bench in pursuance of the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice on a reference by the Learned Single Judge.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Smt. Nafiza Sultana, the petitioner is the holder of stage carriage permit bearing No.P.S.T.P. No.37/98-99 on the route Thoralakki-Bangalore, granted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short hereinafter referred to as “the M.V.Act”] by the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore Rural District. The petitioner was not owning any vehicle on the date of the grant of permit. Therefore, she sought for coverage of the aforesaid permit by the vehicle bearing No.TN 49 E-0580 owned by the 2nd respondent. The said request was granted vide proceedings dated 05.07.2004 of the 1st respondent/Government. The petitioner had obtained the policy of insurance in respect of the aforesaid vehicle and also payed tax due as and when it became payable under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 [for short hereinafter referred to as “the Taxation Act”].
During the year 2006, the vehicle of the 2nd respondent was regularly giving mechanical problems and was not fully plying on the road. When this was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, he took the vehicle from the custody of the petitioner with an assurance that he will get the vehicle properly repaired. When there was delay in redelivery of the vehicle, on an enquiry, the petitioner was told that the 2nd respondent has scrapped the vehicle on 20.10.2006 after notifying the concerned R.T.O. On 26.04.2007, the petitioner filed an application seeking replacement of the vehicle covered by the permit. Upon such request being made, the 1st respondent issued an endorsement on 27.04.2007 to the effect that no tax appears to have been paid on the vehicle bearing No.TN 49E-0580 from 01.11.2005 and accordingly, called upon the petitioner to produce the document to evidence payment of tax as per the endorsement at ANNEXURE-‘A’. Thereafter, the petitioner made available the extract of B-Register and the letter written by the 2nd respondent to the R.T.O. seeking cancellation of the Registration Certificate as per ANNEXURES-“B and C” respectively. The petition thereafter filed an appeal under Section 89(1) of the M.V. Act before the Karnataka Transport Appellate Tribunal [for short hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Tribunal”]. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the petitioner, dismissed the appeal by its Order dated 14.08.2007 as per ANNEXURE-“D”. Challenging the aforesaid Order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
NEED FOR REFERENCE;
3. It was contended before the Learned Single Judge that when an application is made for replacement of a vehicle under Section 83 of the M.V.Act, the non-payment of tax in respect of the vehicle covered under the permit cannot be made a ground for rejection of such request.
In support of such contention reliance was placed on two Judgments of this Court.
Firstly, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of SREENIVASA REDDY vs. THE SECRETARY, MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY W.P. No.1851 of 1972, disposed of on 26.10.1972, HELD AS UNDER:
“4. Rule 130 of the Motor Vehicles rules, 1963, provides for an application for replacement. The applicant shall forward Part A of the permit and apply in Form No. 76 M.V.Rep.A to the transport authority stating the reasons why the replacement is desired.
5. No provision in the Act or the Rules, is brought to out notice, providing for a condition that the applicant should pay all the arrears of Tax in respect of the vehicle before he seeks its replacement.
6. The order impugned, therefore, is patently illegal and unauthorized by law.
7. It may be relevant to state that the petitioner does not even admit the arrears of tax payable by him in respect of the vehicle No. MYD 4744. It would be, therefore, not proper for the authority to insist on the payment of the
