AMEERJAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER MANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of omnibus bearing Registration No. CNN 6447. It was registered only for personal use. On 4-4-1989, the vehicle was checked by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles and a check report was issued with an allegation that the vehicle was found carrying 8 + 1 adult passengers for hire or reward. According to the petitioner subsequently he was served with a demand notice levying additional tax under Section 8-B of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short) issued by the respondent Regional Transport Officer. According to him, the allegation levelled in the check report was palpably false.

(2.) Section 8-B of the Act reads as under:"8-B. Further additional tax for misuse of motor vehicle.When any motor vehicle in respect of which tax has been placed is misused or used not in accordance with the purpose for which the vehicle is registered or the permit is granted or is used in such manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable, the registered owner or person who is in possession or control of such vehicle, shall for such misuse other than the one under sub-section (4) of Section 3, pay a further additional tax of a sum which is equal to double the difference between the tax already paid and the tax which is payable in respect of such vehicle for the period for which the higher rate of tax is payable in consequence of its being misused or used not in accordance with the purpose for which the vehicle is registered or the permit is granted".

(3.) It is well-settled that even if the statutory provision does not expressly provide for granting an opportunity of hearing after due notice to the person likely to be adversely affected, the rule of statutory interpretation impels that such a requirement should be treated as implicit in the provision itself.