Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 44748
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R.NATARAJ
M/S SAHARA TRAVELS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS – Respondent
WP/86466/2012
A vehicle granted an All India Tourist Permit is not liable to be taxed under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, as it is not a vehicle "suitable for use on roads which are in the State for periods shorter than a quarter but not exceeding 30 days".
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION - [SECTION 3(2) OF THE KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION ACT, 1957] - INTERPRETATION - CONTRACT CARRIAGE WITH ALL INDIA TOURIST PERMIT - TAX LIABILITY - HELD, VEHICLE NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 3(2) OF THE ACT OF 1957.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the owner of a stage carriage, has filed this writ petition to quash the Order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.02/TXN/GBA/2012-13. The petitioner claims that it is running a contract carriage in terms of a permit granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth referred as 'MV Act) read with Rules 82 to 85 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (henceforth referred as 'CMV Rules'). The permit was valid in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh and was in force upto 06.08.2013. The petitioner claims that it was tendering tax to the Government of Karnataka as per Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act of 1957') and was operating the stage carriage regularly for 10 to 15 years prior to the filing of this writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The contract carriage in question was granted a tourist permit by the Transport Authority in Hyderabad under Rule 83(2) and 87(2) of the CMV Rules. Sub-Rule 2A of Rule 83 of CMV Rules reads as follows : "2A. The authority which grants the authorisation shall inform the State Transport Authorities concerned the registration number of the motor vehicle, the name and address of the permit holder and the period for which the said authorisation is valid: Provided that where the permit holder undertakes to pay the tax direct to the concerned State Transport Authority at the time of entry in his jurisdiction, the authorisation shall expressly state that it has been issued subject to payment of taxes to the concerned State Transport Authority."
Ratio Decidendi: The contract carriage in question criss-crosses or transits through or throughout the State of Karnataka in view of the All India permit granted to it and therefore, does not qualify to be exigible for motor vehicle tax under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1957. If the interpretation of the respondents is accepted, then every time the vehicle in question enters after exiting the State of Karnataka, it would be liable to pay tax at the rates specified in Part B of the Schedule, which is neither intelligible nor rational.
Final Decision: W.P.No.86466/2012 is allowed and the order passed by the respondent imposing motor vehicle tax on the vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP-29/TA-6222 under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1957 is quashed. Consequently, it is declared that as on the date of seizure of the above vehicle on 04.11.2012, the vehicle had to be taxed only at such rates as is specified in entry 6.a of Part-A of the Schedule to the Act of 1957. Consequently, the respondents are directed to refund the excess tax, if any, collected from the petitioner. In view of the reasoning in W.P. No.86466/2012, writ petition filed in W.P. No.87232/2012 is allowed and seizure of the vehicles bearing Nos.AP.13X-4666 and AP.13/X-6999 are declared as illegal. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.11.2012, in the light of the observations contained in the Order passed in W.P. No.86466/2012.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.86466 OF 2012 (T-MVT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.87232 OF 2012 (T-MVT)
BETWEEN:
M/S SAHARA TRAVELS
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
SMT. KANEEZ FATIMA
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS AND HOUSEHOLD
R/O H.NO.11-1-293, AGAPURA
HYDERABAD-500001.
…PETITIONER
(COMMON)
(BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HOME AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2.
DY. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
SEDAM ROAD,
GULBARGA-585102.
2
3.
THE ASST. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
HUMNABAD CHECK POST,
HUMNABAD DIST. BIDAR-585401.
4.
THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
HUMNABAD CHECK POST,
HUMNABAD DIST. BIDAR-585401.
…RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
IN W.P.NO.86466/2012:
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED
11.10.2012 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE CERTIFIED
COPY
OF
WHICH
IS
AT
ANNEXURE-D
IN
APPEAL
NO.2/TXN/GBA/2012-13.
IN W.P.NO.87232/2012:
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE SEIZURE OF VEHICLES NO.AP-13/X-4666
AND AP-13/X-6999 AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY
OF LAW AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR
ORDERS
ON
05.10.2021
AND
COMING
ON
FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner, the owner of a stage carriage, has
filed this writ petition to quash the Order dated 11.10.2012
passed
by
the
respondent
No.2
in
Appeal
No.02/TXN/GBA/2012-13.
2.
The petitioner claims that it is running a
contract carriage in terms of a permit granted by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 88(9) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth referred as 'MV Act)
read with Rules 82 to 85 of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989 (henceforth referred as 'CMV Rules'). The
permit was valid in the States of Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh and was in
force upto 06.08.2013. The petitioner claims that it was
tendering tax to the Government of Karnataka as per
Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,
1957 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act of 1957') and was
operating the stage carriage regularly for 10 to 15 years
4
prior to the filing of this writ petition. It is claimed that on
21.08.2012 when the contract carriage was passing
through Humnabad Check Post in Karnataka towards
Mumbai, the respondent No.3 along with the police seized
the
vehicle
bearing
Reg.No.AP-29/TA-6222.
The
respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 21.08.2012
directing the petitioner to pay motor vehicles tax as
provided under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1957. The
petitioner
challenged
the
endorsement
before
the
respondent
No.2
in
Appeal
No.2/2012,
which
was
dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.10.2012. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that a reading of Section 3(2) of the Act of 1957, indicated
that motor vehicle tax under the said provision could be
imposed upon a vehicle, which is brought for use in
Karnataka for a period of more than 7 days but not
exceeding 30 days. He claimed that the stage carriage
belonging to the petitioner only passes through Karnataka
5
every day and moves to either Mumbai or Bengaluru.
Therefore, he contended that the vehicle is only on transit
in Karnataka but it is not brought for use in Karnataka.
He, therefore, submitted that the impugned endorsement
is thoroughly illegal and the petitioner was bound to be
charged under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1957 at the rate
specified in Part-A of sched
