ABDUL RAUF Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VEHICLE bearing Registration No. KLN 2464 was originally registered in the State of Kerala. In December, 1989 the petitioner purchased and brought the same to the State of Karnataka. He then made an application to the Regional Transport Officer, Raichur for transfer of ownership in his favour. This application was rejected by the RTO on the ground that the vehicle did not satisfy the requirements of the Rule 151 of the karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules of 1989. Aggrieved the petitioner filed w. P. No. 31 of 1990 and succeeded in getting a direction against the rto for registration of the vehicle. Consequently the vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 1-2-1990. Shortly thereafter the rto issued a demand notice Annexure-A to the petition, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 9,030/- on account of the tax payable in respect of the vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1957 for the period of 1-12-1989 to 31-1-1990. This demand the petitioner unsuccessfully assailed in an appeal before the Commissioner for Transport at gulbarga. The Appellate Authority held that the vehicle having been brought into the State of Karnataka in December, 1989 and not being exempted from the payment of tax under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1957, the only course open to the petitioner, under the circumstances was to pay the amount of tax claimed and seek refund thereof under Section 7, if the vehicle had not been used during the period in question as alleged by the petitioner. In the present writ petition the petitioner calls in question the validity of the aforesaid order of the Commissioner as also the demand notice issued by the RTO.

(2.) MR. Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the vehicle in question had not been used during the period of 1-12-1989 to 31-1-1990. He urged that the authorities had by rejecting the request for registration of the vehicle, disabled the petitioner from putting the vehicle on the road for use. The documents concerning the vehicle, argued the learned Counsel had been tendered to the authority which had remained with them, in the absence whereof the petitioner could not have made use of the vehicle. He relied upon Section 66 of the motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and argued that the petitioner was legally debarred from bringing the vehicle on the road for use in the absence of a permit and since the permit could not be issued till such time the vehicle was transferred in his name, it must be presumed that the vehicle had not actually remained in use.

(3.) THE essential facts are not in dispute. It is not denied that the vehicle even though registered originally in Kerala was brought to the state of Karnataka in December 1989 by the petitioner, on the basis of the sale in his favour. It is also not in dispute that eversince the day the vehicle has entered the State of Karnataka the same has remained in the custody and control of the petitioner. That being so the liability to pay tax under Section 3 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1957, in respect of any such vehicle cannot be disputed particularly when it is admitted that the vehicle was otherwise suitable for use on road during relevant period. Whether or not the vehicle was actually used is however a pure and simple question of fact which shall have to be enquired into and determined by the Competent Authority. I draw support in this regard from the decision of the Supreme Court in State of karnataka v K. Gopalakrishna Shenoy and Another , where their lordships have held that the State can levy tax on all motor vehicles which are suitably designed for use on road. Explanation to Section 3 (1)of the Act it was held contains a deemed provision that as long as the certificate of registration of a motor vehicle is current, the vehicle must be deemed to be suitable for use on roads. The following passage from the decision is in this regard apposite.