PATEL GIRIYAPPA Vs. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises a short but important point which turns on the proper interpretation of S. 18(3) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Act No.35 of 1957), called shortly 'the Act'.

(2.) The facts are simple and not in dispute. They may be stated as follows: The petitioner is an agriculturist. He has a tractor-trailer which wag designed and used for his agricultural operations. It was exempted from payment of tax under the provisions of S.16(3) of the Act. On 20th October, 1972, the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Tumkur found that that vehicle was carrying stones for road works which was not for agricultural purposes. Accordingly, he submitted a report to the Regional Transport Officer, who called upon the petitioner by a notice to explain why 'he exemption 'from payment of tax should not be cancelled. The petitioner in his reply, did not dispute the facts alleged against him. He admitted the misuse of the vehicle, but pleaded that it was not with his knowledge. He, accoordingly, prayed for continuance of the exemption from payment of tax. The RTO did not accept the contention. He cancelled the exemption granted with effect from 1st Octr, 1972 and directed the petitioner to pay the tax at the rate of Rs.400 per quarter with effect from the said date and onwards. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against that order was dismissed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Bangalore. The appellate authority has held that since the petitioner has committed the offence, he was not entitled to any exemption provided under Section 16(3) of the Act. In this Rule, the petitioner wants to quash the aforesaid orders.

(3.) The argument put forward for the petitioner can be briefly stated in this way The exemption from payment of tax is provided under.S.16(3) of the Act and the vehicle cannot be deprived of that exemption, unless it is found that the vehicle has been substantially used for non-agricultural purposes. Alternatively it was contended that even if there was a misuse of the vehicle, the owner could only be prosecuted in the Criminal Court under Rule 37 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, and cannot be held liable to pay the tax which has been otherwise statutorily exempted