1. The petitioner herein, admittedly the owner of a stage carriage bearing Registration No. KA - 07/5233 seeks writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 3.7.2013 in Taxation Appeal No. 1/2013 - 14, Annexure 'E' and also the order of 2nd respondent dated 13.2.2013 vide Annexure 'A'.

2. Sri. S. V. Girikumar, learned AGA takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.

3. As the learned counsel on both sides are ready, I have heard them.

4. Not in dispute is the fact that petitioner, the owner of stage carriage bearing Registration No. KA - 07/5233 applied to the Regional Transport Officer for non - use of the vehicle through his intimation dated 30.4.2010. The intimation was received by the Officers concerned and the Inspector of the Motor Vehicle Department was directed to investigate who reported that the vehicle in question was not found at the declared place of garage. It was also reported that one of the conditions laid down in the Notification dated 6.9.2007 issued under S.16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') that on submission of declaration about non - use, the vehicle shall not be removed from the declared place of garage without prior permission of the Registering Authority (vide condition No. 9 of the Notification) was violated and the applicant had removed the vehicle from the declared place.

5. On the basis of such report of the Inspector and regarding alleged violation of condition No. 9 of the Notification, the authority notified the petitioner through a show cause notice calling upon him to submit his reply. He sent a reply stating that due to formation of Railway lane (Kolar - Chickaballapur), the track line was modified and cleared and the vehicle in question which was blocking the area was removed from the place under the direction of the RO. Thus, he submitted to the authorities that the vehicle was removed from the declared place and was kept only at 100 yards away near KSB Body Builders, which was nearby.

6. Reply so given did not convince the competent authority and thus, the competent authority held that non - use of the vehicle reported by the petitioner was factually incorrect and therefore, rejected the intimation of non - use.

7. Based on that opinion, the Regional Transport Officer, the competent authority under the Act passed the order Annexure 'A' directing the petitioner to pay tax due on the vehicle for the period from 1.6.2010 to 28.2.2013 amounting to Rs.3,53,508/- within of 15 days after receipt of notice thereof.

8. Assailing it, the petitioner preferred an appeal availing the benefit of S.15 of the Act on 25.6.2013. It was registered by the appellate authority under Tax Appeal No. 1/2013. As the appeal was preferred beyond the period of 30 days from the date of order passed by the 2nd respondent, impugned in the appeal, the petitioner claims he filed an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1953 seeking condonation of delay and also an application under S.15 of the Act seeking to dispense with the deposit of the admitted / disputed tax amount for the reasons stated in the affidavits.

9. The appellate authority, scrutinizing the appeal has issued an order Annexure 'E' declining to entertain and ordered it to be returned to the petitioner.

10. The petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that the first respondent has failed to exercise the appellate jurisdiction conferred on it by returning the appeal to the petitioner instead of considering the applications filed by him under S.5 of the Limitation Act as also under S.15 of the Act to dispense with deposit of the amount.

11. Several grounds are urged by the learned counsel amongst which his core contention is, if at all the appellate authority found no favour with the circumstances explained by the petitioner explaining the delay in filing the appeal, the authority was required to pass a reasoned order. The order impugned is not an order, it is described as endorsement and reads