REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER BANGALORE 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 upto 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 has 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, the 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 Vehicle 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. This 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.) SECTION 3(1) of the Act provides that a tax at the rates specified in part-A of the Schedule, shall be levied on all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads. Explanation to SECTION 3(1) of the Act, provides that a motor vehicle of which the certificate of registration is current shall, for the purpose of the Act, be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads. Note: for the purpose of the explanation provides that, the certificate of Registration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in SECTION 38 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 be deemed to be current, even if the certificate of fitness in not effective, provided such certificate of fitness has not been cancelled. Thus it is clear from the said provisions that, a motor vehicle of which, the certificate of registration is current, is required to be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads. All motor vehicles which are suitable for use on roads attract the tax liability as provided under sub-section (1) of SECTION 3 of "the Act". It is not the case of the respondent that the certificate of registration of the vehicle was cancelled or was not current from 1.5.2000 to 30.4.2003. The respondent has not produced any evidence to show that he or the Insurance Company made any application seeking cancellation of the registration of the vehicle on any ground during the said period. Hence, it is reasonable to hold that the certificate of registration was current, there being no evidence produced by the respondent to the contrary effect. Therefore the conditions specified in SECTION 3 of "the Act", which is the charging section, are all satisfied and the concerned authority was entitled to levy the tax. In the case of State of Karnataka v/s K. Gopalakrishna Shenoy and another (AIR 1967 SC 1911) the Hon"ble Supreme Court has considered the issue as to whether the owner or the person having possession or control of a motor vehicle, is bound to pay the tax under SECTION 3(1) of "the Act" because, the vehicle was in the state of repair and was not put to use on the road and further more, the certificate of fitness of the vehicle had not been kept current, even though the certificate of registration was kept current? Taking into account, the explanation to SECTION 3 (1) of the Act, it was held as follows: