RUDRAMUNIYAPPAN Vs. R T A CHITRADURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an agriculturist and owns a Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No. 5817-18. He was exempted from payment of tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 16 of the Act read with Rules 34 and 36 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provide for such exemption. The petitioner was stopped on 14-7-1978 when he was proceeding in his trailer to his lands, by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles attached to the office of the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga, and the vehicle was checked and check report was issued demanding the tax of Rs. 1760 at the rate of Rs. 880 per quarter. Aggrieved by the demand notice, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Shimoga. The appeal also came to be dismissed by an order dated 18-6-1979. The demand notice and the order made in appeal are annexed as Exs- A and B to the petition. Immediately after the order was made in appeal, a demand notice was again issued bearing the date 30-8-79 calling upon the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 3520 at the same rate as before i.e., Rs. 880 per quarter. Aggrieved by the first demand notice, the appellate order and the 2nd demand notice, the, petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, contending that the impugned notices and the appellate order are liable to be quashed inasmuch as the imposition o'f tax without an opportunity being given to the petitioner is ex facie illegal and the petitioner ought to have been heard before the civil consequences, of deprivation of his right to exemption under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, were visited on him.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute i.e., that the petitioner did not have the opportunity before his exemption was cancelled. In fact, no material has been placed before the Court to demonstrate that the exemption has been withdrawn and the same is not expressed in writing by the 1st respondent. Rule 34 of the Rules provides for the manner in which the exemption is given. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 34 of the Rules is as follows:

(3.) In the result, rule issued earlier is made absolute. But, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.