S. RANGARAJU NAIDU Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner owns agricultural lands in the revenue districts of Salem and Tanjore. He purchased in the year 1955 a tractor - -Steyor make - -for about Rs. 21,000 under a hire -purchase agreement with Government of Madras. The vehicle was registered as M.D.O. 1906 and a registration certificate under the Motor Vehicles Act was issued. The Regional Transport Officer, Salem, has made a tax demand upon the petitioner in respect of the vehicle at the rate of Rs. 293 per quarter of a year with effect from 4th January, 1956. This is based on the provisions of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931, and G.O. Ms. No. 3654, Home, dated 21st December, 1955, amending Rule 1 of the Rules of the Act. The validity of the claim for tax is challenged by the petitioner who prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Officer, Salem, the respondent to cancel the endorsement on the Registration Certificate of M.D.O. 1906 regarding payment of tax.

(2.) WHAT happened prior to the initiation of this proceeding may now be stated. On 29th August, 1957, the respondent demanded payment of tax at the rate of Rs. 293 for every quarter with effect from 4th January, 1956. The petitioner avers that on 1st September, 1957, he intimated the respondent stoppage of the tractor from use. The respondent denies having received any such stoppage report. The petitioner addressed the respondent on 6th September, 1957 and submitted that the tractor had been used solely for the purpose of agriculture and that Section 11 -A of the Taxation Act excluded it from that Act. No reference is made therein to the petitioner's alleged communication dated 1st September, 1957. On the other hand the petitioner observed that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes. The petitioner sent a reminder on 6th July, 1958, and again wrote on 2nd October, 1958, claiming ' exemption 'from taxation. The following extract from that letter is material:

(3.) IT is now common ground that the petitioner's' tractor' is an articulated vehicle within the meaning of the rule and is therefore a goods vehicle, subject to taxation under the Act. The petitioner however contends that the vehicle is not within the Act by reason of Section 11 -A which is as follows: