REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER BANAGALOR Vs. S RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT is the registered owner of Motor vehicle bearing registration No. KA-09/4949. The Tax of the vehicle was paid by him up to 3-4-2000. The vehicle had met with an accident on 15-4-2000. Motor Vehicle Inspector has inspected the vehicle at the accident spot on 19-4-2000 and has submitted his report. The respondent has filed an application in form 30 on 25-4-2000 declaring the non-user of the vehicle and seeking exemption from payment of motor vehicle tax. Considering the application, Regional Transport Officer by an order dated 27-4-2000 had provisionally accepted the request of the respondent, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of the notification dated 11-9-1980. The respondent had declared that the vehicle was kept at M/s. Singh Motors, 57/58, Toobina Kere, KIADB industrial Area, Yelachikkana Halli, near mandya. Motor Vehicle Inspector hais visited the said garage on 18-7-2000 and has found the vehicle at the said place. On a further inspection held on 26-12-2002, it was noticed that, the vehicle was not found kept at the declared place and had been removed. A notice dated 9-1-2003 was issued by the first appellant to the respondent to show cause, why action should not be taken for revoking the intimation of non-user and demand tax for contravening the specified conditions of the said notification. The respondent has submitted his reply dated 27-1-2003, in which, he claimed that the vehicle is kept in the said place only. The respondent has submitted a further reply dated 4-2-2003. Considering the said replies, holding that the cause shown by the respondent as unacceptable and the conditions as having been violated, an order dated 25-4-2003 Was passed by the 1st appellant, revoking the intimation of non-user and consequently, levying tax of the vehicle for the period from 1-5-2000 to 30-4-2003, amounting to Rs. 8,73,920/- and directing the respondent to pay the tax. Pursuant to the order, a notice dated 9-4-2003 was issued by the first appellant to the respondent, demanding the payment of the said amount of tax. The respondent has questioned the said order by filing an appeal under Section 15 of the karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1953 ('the Act' for short ). The second appellant considering the appeal, finding it to be devoid of merit, has dismissed the same by judgment dated 23-8-2004. The respondent has questioned the said order and judgment in the writ petition, which has been allowed. The appeal is filed to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge.

(2.) WE have heard Smt. V. Vidya, learned government Advocate for the appellants and sri. P. S. Manjunath, learned Advocate for the respondent and perused the record.

(3.) SMT. V. Vidya, learned Government advocate would contend that the vehicle has been removed from the declared place of parking, without prior permission and there was violation of the conditions imposed, while provisionally accepting the request of the respondent, of the non-user of the vehicle and granting exemption from payment of tax. She would further contend that the consequent action taken by appellant No. 1 and upheld by appellant No. 2, is in accordance with law; she relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of State of karnataka v. K. Gopalakrishna Shenoy and another reported in AIR 1987 SC 1911 and contended that the learned single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition on the basis of the report of the Motor Vehicle inspector, who had inspected the vehicle, at the accident spot and had submitted the report of its conditions as found by him at that point of time.