Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2652
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
S. Kumar
Versus
The Regional Transport Officer, Dharmapuri
W.P.No.2723 of 2006 & W.P.M.P.No.2842 of 2006
Decided On : 05-07-2010
For the Petitioner:N. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Murali, Government Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory conditions and liabilities cast on the vehicle owner under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in relation to the payment of tax and penalty for the use or non-use of the vehicle.
Headnote:
Tax Arrears - Motor Vehicles Taxation - Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, Rule 172(6) & 279 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - The court discussed the liability of the petitioner to pay tax with penalty for the period for which the petitioner failed to get permission to stop the vehicle. The court referred to relevant provisions of the law including Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, and Rule 172(6) & 279 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and interpreted the statutory conditions and liabilities cast on the vehicle owner. The court also considered previous judgments and their applicability to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner owned a mini bus and was demanded tax and penalty for the period after the expiry of the fitness certificate. The petitioner's permit was cancelled for non-payment of tax, and the appeal was dismissed as it was barred by limitation. The petitioner challenged the demand, citing a previous court judgment and statutory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to obtain permission to stop the vehicle as required under Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The court held that the liability to pay tax was established, and payment of penalty for non-payment was automatically attracted. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the petitioner to pay tax and penalty for the period after the expiry of the fitness certificate, the applicability of previous court judgments, and the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the statutory conditions and liabilities cast on the vehicle owner under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, and Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The court also considered previous judgments and their applicability to the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's case and upholding the demand for tax arrears and penalty.
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 26.7.2005 demanding tax and penalty amount of Rs.20,836/-for the period from 16.1.2003 to 31.3.2003 after expiry of fitness certificate on 31.1.2002.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was owning a mini bus bearing registration No.TN-33-U-0465 and the permit of the vehicle was cancelled for non-payment of tax for the period from 1.2.2002. Petitioner filed statutory appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Appeal No.987 of 2003 and the appeal was dismissed as it was barred by limitation. The respondent issued a memo on 13.9.2004 and called upon the petitioner to pay tax amount of Rs.10,418/-for the period from 17.1.2003 to 9.4.2003 with 100% penalty totalling Rs.20,836/-, failing which it was stated that action under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act will be initiated. Petitioner was also directed to pay compounding fee of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.4,500/-. Petitioner is not disputing the payment of compound fee and he is aggrieved only against the demand of Rs.20,836/- towards tax arrears with penalty. Petitioner filed W.P.No.6724 of 2004 and challenged the said demand. The said writ petition was disposed of on 1.3.2005 with direction to treat the demand notice as show cause notice with liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the respondent. The petitioner submitted a representation/objection on 10.7.2005 and stated that in view of the order of this Court reported in 1994 WLR 263 (M/s.Gopu Transport, Madras-83 v. R.T.O., Madras West) there is no liability on his part to pay tax after expiry of the period of fitness certificate, which expired on 31.1.2002. The respondent again passed an order on 26.7.2005 and directed the petitioner to pay the said amount as per Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The said order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the matter in issue is concluded by the judgment of this Court referred above and that for violating Rule 172(6) there must be a valid permit, and when the permit itself has been cancelled, the question of demand of tax and penalty would not arise.
3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the mini bus was granted permit to ply in the route Indur Police Station to C.Pudur and the permit was violated from 22.3.2001 to 21.3.2006. Petitioner paid tax till 30.6.2002 and his stoppage report is dated 1.7.2002. It was stated by the petitioner that the vehicle requires major repairs and therefore he sought for permission as per Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Respondent herein granted permission for stoppage of the vehicle from 1.7.2002 to 16.1.2003. Since the petitioner has not taken steps to resume the service of the vehicle the Regional Transport Authority rejected further permission under Rule 172(6). The permit itself was cancelled under Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with effect from 9.4.2003. The permit holder has not taken any steps to carry out the repairs of the vehicle to meet the needs of the travelling public. No tax was assessed from 1.7.2002 to 7.1.2003 i.e, for the period in which permission was granted to stop the vehicle. A demand notice was issued to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,418/- + penalty of Rs.10,418/-after complying with the direction issued by this Court and the petitioners objections were also considered. Petitioners counsel also appeared and contended that when FC is not valid, the liability of payment of tax does not arise. As permission to stop the vehicle was not given, petitioner is bound to pay tax till the permit was cancelled. There is no illegality in the said order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1994 WLR 263 (cited supra) contended that the matter in issue is covered by the said judgment and therefore the order of the respondent is bad in law.
