VIJAYKUMAR MANE Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 14th December 1999 in W. P. No. 44341/99 has preferred this writ appeal. In the writ petition, the petitioner assailed validity of demand notice dated 9-12-1997 produced as Annexure-F. calling upon the writ petitioner to pay arrears of the tax payable under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, (for short, the Taxation Act) for the period from 16-3-1996 to 23-3-1998. The learned single Judge by the order impugned in the appeal has dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) THE background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly as under : The petitioner is the registered owner of motor Vehicle bearing registration No. KA-25/5656. The said vehicle was hypothecated to the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, (for short, KSFC), the third respondent here in. Since, the petitioner committed default in paying the amount due to the ksfc, the vehicle was seized by KSFC from the possession of petitioner on 16-3-1996. Before this event, the petitioner had paid motor Vehicle Tax in regard to the vehicle for the period ending 31-3-1996. Motor Vehicle Tax for the period subsequent to 1-4-1996 was not paid either by the petitioner or by the KSFC. The seizure of the vehicle and non-use of the vehicle as consequent to such seizure, was not intimated to the Regional Transport Officer, Dharwad, the first respondent herein, either by the petitioner or by KSFC. It was only by the letter dated 21-5-1997, the KSFC informed the first respondent that the vehicle had been seized on 16-3-1996 and that the vehicle was still in its custody. Along with the said communication, KSFC sent an intimation of non-use in Form No. 30 under Rule 34-A of the karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957 (Rules for short ). On a report by the inspector of Motor Vehicles about the seizure of the vehicle by KSFC, the first respondent sent a notice of demand dated 8-7-1996 produced as Annexure-D to the ksfc in regard to the Motor Vehicles Tax due for the period 1-4-1996 to 30-6-1997. This was followed by another notice dated 29-5-1997 to KSFC demandingrs. 1,82,000 as Motor Vehicle Tax dues for the period 1-4-1996 to 30-6-1997. In the meanwhile, the petitioner took back possession of the vehicle from KSFC and has been using it. As the tax for the period 1-4-1996 to 30-6-1997 remained unpaid, the first respondent sent a notice dated 9-12-1996 produced as annexure-F to the petitioner claiming Rs. 1,82,000/- as MV tax for the period 1-4-1996 to 30-6-1997.

(3.) THE petitioner feeling aggrieved by the above action of the first respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum, the second respondent herein. The second respondent allowed the appeal of the petitioner by order dated NIL, produced as Annexure-L and remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh disposal on the ground that the first respondent did not initiate action for recovery of tax against KSFC, in addition to the petitioner. The second respondent has held that as no intimation of non-use was sent as required under Section 16 (1)of the Taxation Act read with notification dated 11-9-1980 and Rule 31 -A of the Rules, till 21-5-1997, both the petitioner and the ksfc are liable to pay the tax for the period 1-4-1996 to 30-6-1997 and the petitioner will have to pay the tax and then seek refund, if the vehicle is not under his use under Section 7 of the Taxation Act. The second respondent held that the registered owner cannot escape liability to pay the tax having regard to Section 9 of the Taxation act.