N RAMU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a holder of contract carriage permits issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of his vehicles, also registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It appears, a portion of the route covered under the permits lies in the State of Karnataka and the permit holder is required to obtain the countersignature in the State of Karnataka. Petitioner, who is operating motor vehicles in the State of Kamataka, is also liable to pay tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles taxation Act, 1957 (for short, 'karnataka Act'), in terms of section 3 the charging section - and tax at the rate specified in Part 'a' of the schedule is levied on all motor vehicles on use of the roads in the State. The petitioner's vehicles which are being used on the road in the State of karnataka as contract carriages and as part of the routes passes through the State of Karnataka, obviously are liable to tax, as Section 3 of the Act is attracted.

(2.) INSOFAR as kind of vehicles that the petitioner is owning and the nature of the operations having regard to the permits issued to the petitioner is concerned, the submission of Sri C. Narasimhachar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that they are covered by Entry 5 of Part 'a of the Schedule to the Karnataka Act. It appears that this Entry has undergone several changes, one such being in terms of the Karnataka act No. 9 of 2003, with effect from 29th March, 2003. The relevant entry, after such amendment, reads as under: (a) (i)Motor vehicles (contract carriages) plying for hire or reward and constructed or adopted to carry more than 12 passengers (excluding driver and conductor/attendant) and covered by permit issued under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and complying with Rule 151 (2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for every passenger 750. 00 (ii)Motor vehicles (contract carriages) plying for hire or reward and constructed or adopted to carry more than 12 passengers (excluding driver and conductor/attendant) and covered by permit issued under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and complying with Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for every passenger 2,000. 00

(3.) IT appears, after the amendment to the Entry in this manner, the authorities in the State of Karnataka are collecting taxes on the vehicles of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per passenger. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities are collecting this tax by using coercive methods, particularly by denying countersignature to the permit in the State when the petitioner had sought for the countersignature and in such circumstance, the petitioner is left with no choice but to pay the tax under protest and the petitioner has now approached this Court for the relief of declaration to the effect that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax at this rate and though the petitioner is not covered under either clause (a) (i) or (a) (ii) referred to in the Entry as of now, nevertheless the petitioner is prepared to pay tax at the rate of Rs. 750/- per passenger and definitely not at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per passenger, as the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax at that rate under this Entry, a declaration should be issued in favour of the petitioner to this effect and the authorities be directed to levy tax on the vehicles of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 750/- per passenger.