CHELUVARAJ Vs. R T O SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is disposed of by the following order after notice to respondents and after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and the respondents.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of his goqds 'transport vehicle, bearing registration No. MYA 3fi83 by the second respondent on 17-3-1980. The petitioner's driver was served with notice in Form No. 27 under Rule 27-A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules). It is stated that the said notice was not legible as to the contents noted. However, it is discernible that the vehicle wa,s seized as the said vehicle was in arrears of tax for, a period anterior to the date on which the petitioner secured ownership of the vehicle. Undoubtedly a provision is made under the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') that liability to pay tax will not only be foisted, on the person who is currently in possession of the vehicle or who owns it or who was the owner previously, in accordance with S. 9 of the Act. The petitioner has stated that the previous owner had paid a total sum of Rs. 3,190 in two equal instalments on 10-9-1977 and on 10-4-1978. Whatever may be the controversy in regard to the existence of arrears of tax in respect of the vehicle, the seizure of the vehicle under Rule 27-A of the Rules is possible only when the, Officer empowered by the State Government has reason to believe that the tax payable in respect of that motor vehicle has remained unpaid. The use of the expression 'payable' in that Rule denotes that the Officer empowered under the Act must determine the tax payable by the owner of the vehicle at an earlier point of time. In the absence of any material indicating that an admission had been made by the petitioner in regard to arrears of tax, the vehicle while in the possession of a transferee is not liable for seizure without determination of the arrears of tax.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader has contended that a demand notice for a sum of Rs. 20,000 and odd was indeed served on the previous owner on 3-12-1979 and the taxes mentioned therein have remained unpaid. But, however, Sri Vishwanath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the fitness certifi- certificate in, respect of the vehicle had expired in the year 1977, and had not since been renewed and therefore relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in B. V. Subramanya Setty v. Senior RTO, Mysore (1) (Writ Petition No. 1149 of 1974 and connected matters) contended that the burden of proving that the vehicle was used on road after 1977 is on the taxation authorities as a presumption arises under S. 38 of the Motor VehicleAct that the registration certificate ceases to be current, as an automatic result of the expiration of the fitness certificate.