LAWS(KAR)-2003-11-53

APOLINE MARCEL D SOUZA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On November 24, 2003
APOLINE MARCEL DSOUZA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER-OPERATOR is challenging Annexure-C a notice dated 26-6-2003 issued by the third respondent. Petitioner has also challenged the notice at Annexure-D, dated 4-7-2003. Petitioners' further prayer is for a direction to consider the request of the petitioner without insisting upon production of vehicles in terms of the prayer 4 at para 21.

(2.) FACTS in brief are as under: petitioner is the owner of contract carriage vehicles bearing registration nos. MH 01/l, 6967, 6968, 6973, 7499, 7699 and 6905 and is operating his service in terms of the permits granted by the State of Maharashtra. Petitioner has filed a registration certificate of one such vehicle in terms of Annexure-A. Each one of the vehicles is covered by the contract carriage permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act. Permit was granted by the authorities of the state of Maharashtra. Petitioner is paying quarterly tax regularly in respect of his vehicles in the State of Maharashtra at Rs. 1,100/- per seat per quarter. Section 88 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act ('the Act' for short), contemplates that the permit granted by the authority of one region or the State shall not be valid outside the region or the State where the vehicle is entitled to be plied. In the case on hand, all the five vehicles of the petitioner are authorised to ply on the inter-State route of Mumbai to Mangalore. Petitioner has obtained countersignature from the State of Karnataka. Apart from obtaining requisite countersignature, the petitioner is also required to pay tax to the State of Karnataka as per Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. The tax assessed by the authority of State of karnataka is Rs. 750/- per seat per quarter together with 5% surcharge which works out to Rs. 27,565/- every quarter in respect of each vehicle. Though the petitioner is paying the tax regularly, the third respondent refused to receive the tax resulting in petitioner moving this Court in W. P. Nos. 21667 to 21771 of 2003. This Court disposed of the writ petitions in terms of its order dated 8-5-2003. In terms of the order of this Court, petitioner filed objections before the third respondent. According to petition averments, instead of considering the objections, the respondents sought the petitioner to produce the vehicles for inspection for assessment of tax and to verify as to whether the vehicles comply with Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('the rules' for short ). This action is challenged.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties.