LAWS(KAR)-1987-6-17

K L LINGAMMA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER MYSORE

Decided On June 23, 1987
K.L.LINGAMMA Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MYSORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of learned Counsel, this writ petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and if have heard them.

(2.) The petitioner is the registered owner of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. MYN 4882. Since that vehicle was one for which a special permit had been issued under Section b3 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, quarterly advance tax payable thereto under item 6(a) of Part-A of the Schedule to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') for the period from 1-5-1986 to 31-7-1986, had been paid. That vehicle was, however, altered as a stage carriage with effect from 27-6-1986 making it liable for tax at a lewer rate as provided for in item 4 (4) (a) of Part-A of the Schedule to the Act. That vehicle being used from 27-6-1986 to 31-7-1986 as a stage carriage, the petitioner made a claim before the Regional Transport Officer, Mysore (respondent-1) for refund of tax paid earlier by her for the vehicle as provided for in Section 7 of the Act. But, that claim was rejected by respondent-1 stating that the petitioner had not complied with Section 7 of the Act read with Rule 20 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957 (for short the Rules )and that no rate of refund had been fixed under Rule 23 of the Rules. The endorsement dated 26-9-1986 issued by respondent-1 in that regard has been produced in the writ petition as Annexure-A. That endorsement being appealed against by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner for transport, Mysore Division, Mysore (respondent-2), that appeal has been dismissed. The appellate order has been produced in the writ petition as Annexure-B. It is the said endorsement and the appellate order which have been impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the endorsement and the appellate order impugned in the writ petition are unsustainable in that, the claim made by the petitioner for refund, as provided for under Rule 20 of the Rules, was sustainable under Section 7 of the Act.