VIRUPAKSHAPPA Vs. SENIOR REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER RAICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a stage carriage operator, is aggrieved by a demand for TPG arrears made in notice No.TPG/MYX 6727/RCR/71-72 by the Senior Regional Transport Officer, Raichur. The said order had been affirmed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Gulbarga, in No.TPC. APL 49/71-72.

(2.) The petitioner became the owner of the stage carriage by purchase from one Basappa Maski on 18-3-1970. His vendor Basappa had purchased it from the former owner, one Baliga, on 20-3-1969. The permit for the operation of the stage carriage, had been in the name of the said Baliga. The demand made by the RTO for TPG arrears relates to the period from November 1966 to February 1968. It is clear from these dates that the operator during the relevant period was Baliga, the former permit holder.

(3.) It has now to be seen whether a purchaser like the petitioner would be liable for the payment of TPG arrears in respect of a period during which he was not a recognised operator. Sec.6 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act, 1961, provides for levy of TPG tax from an 'Operator' after affording him a reasonable opportunity for making his representations, if any and as the case may be of establishing the correctness or completeness of the returns submitted by him. The expression 'operator' has been defined as any person whose name is entered as the permit holder thereof. It is clear that the word 'operator' cannot be understood in any other sense as the law itself equates him to a permit holder. It is therefore clear from these two provisions, that the petitioner would not answer the description of an operator within the meaning of S.6 of the Act, for the purpose of levy of TPG tax for the period from November, 1966 to February 1968 as he then was neither an operator nor the owner of the stage carriage. The demand therefore is clearly illegal.