S A SHUKOOR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal question raised in these writ petitions relates to the applicability of the Explanation to Sec.3(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the motor vehicles which are involved in these cases. It is stated that all the vehicles in question are transport vehicles which cannot be run without fitness certificates issued under Sec.38 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further Stated that the vehicles in question were not carrying fitness certificates during the relevant period. THE Regional Transport Officer and (Deputy Transport Commissioner) the Commissioner have held in all these cases that the vehicles in question were subject to tax by virtue of the Explanation to Sec.3(1) of the Act irrespective of the fact whether the vehicles in question carried fitness certificates during the relevant period. A Full Bench of this Court in B. V. Subramanya Setty v. Senior RTO, WP. 1149/75 d/ 30-6-1978. has held that thq Explanation to sub-sec(1) of Sec.3 of the Act would not be attracted to a case where a transport vehicle is not carrying a fitness certificate issued under Sec.38 of the Motor Vehicles Act. THE liability of the vehicles in question should have been examined by the authorities under the Act without thq aid of the Explanation as held by the Full Bench. THE order passed by the Deputy Transpqrt Commr in each of these cases is therefore set aside. THEse cases are remanded to him for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in particular keeping in view the decision of this Court in WP. 1149175 and cqnnected matter. All other contentions are left open.