SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-company is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It carries on business of hire purchase on vehicles, machinery, equipments and also leasing of machinery and equipments. It filed the abovewrit petition for the following relief: To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records of the 1st respondent in No. l05385/a4/93, dated 3. 2. 1993 and quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to issue a fresh Registration certificate under Sec. 51 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in relation to the vehicle TN 59 A 0144 in favour of the petitioner-company.

(2.) IN the course of business, the petitioner was approached by the 2nd respondent during May, 1990, with a request to purchase a new Ashok Leyland Chassis from the dealers M/s. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons ltd. , Madurai, and let it on hire to the 2nd respondent (hirer) under hire purchase system. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 22. 5. 1990 wherein one P. V. Kandaswami of Madurai, joined as a guarantor. The total hire purchase amount of Rs. 4,00,993 is payable in 35 monthly instalments. The first instalment commenced on 22. 6. 1990 and the last instalment ended on 224. 1993. The said dealer also raised invoice in the name of the petitioner-company as owners of the vehicle showing the 2nd respondent only as a hirer. The fact of the said hire purchase agreement was also recorded in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle TN 59 A 0144 by the Assistant Registering Authority, Madurai .

(3.) WHILE so, the 1st respondent sent a notice dated 9. 11. 1992 to the petitioner directing it to pay the motor vehicles tax for the quarter ending 31. 12. 1992 and also the permit tax for the period from 1. 4. 1992 so as to take steps for issue of fresh Registration Certificate in the name of the petitioner-company. The petitioner sent a reply dated 24. 11. 1992 to the 1st respondent clearly highlighting the provisions of law under which the petitioner is not obligated to pay the motor vehicles tax and also reminding him of the various stoppage reports sent by the petitioner claiming for exemption of tax. The 1st respondent sent a reply dated 16. 121992 declining to consider the petitioner''s representation dated 24. 11. 1992 stating that the petitioner had intimated only the re-possession of the vehicle and did not send any communication regarding stoppage of the vehicle. The petitioner was once again called upon to pay the tax already demanded by the 1st respondent in the earlier notice. The petitioner sent a reply dated 29. 12. 1992 clarifying the fallacy in the notice of the 1st respondent dated 16. 12. 1992 and once again requesting him to issue fresh Registration Certificate in favour of the petitioner-company. In response, the 1st respondent returned Form No. 36 under the impugned notice dated 3. 2. 1993, once again directing the petitioner to pay motor vehicles tax for the quarter ending 31. 3. 1993 and also the national permit tax for the period from 1. 4. 1992 and resubmit Form No. 36. With these averments, the petitioner-company has filed the writ petition for the relief mentioned above.