T. MUTHUSAMY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, DHARMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is coming up for orders on account of the fact that it is covered by earlier judgments of this Court, on the subject.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for records in the proceedings of the respondent in Memo R. No. 3080/ A5/92, dated 30-1-1992 where under the respondent has called upon the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs. 4,410.00 being 25% of the penalty due on the tax for the quarter ending 31-3-1992 (the tax being Rs. 17,640.00) in respect of the stage carriage vehicle, TNG 9912 belonging to the petitioner. The demand of penalty as above came to be made on account of the fact that the last date for the payment of the tax for the quarter ending 31-3-1992 being 24-1-1992, the relevant demand draft for Rs. 17,640.00 was received by the respondent office only on 30-1-1992 and the same came to be appropriated and accounted for the tax on 30-1-1992 and this belated remittance warrants the levy and collection of penalty.

(3.) Aggrieved, the petitioner has come before this Court. The writ petitioner has stated in the affidavit filed in support of the above petition that the amount was remitted and demand draft was obtained from the designated bank on 24-1-1992 which was the last date and which happened to be a Friday. It appears that though the demand draft was ready on 24-1-1992, in view of the difficulty encountered in tracing the registration certificate which was given for the purpose of insurance office, it could not be presented on that date itself and 25th and 26th of Jan. happened to be holidays and due to some local commotion on account of some procession, the petitioner would claim that even on 27-1-1992, it could not be handed over sufficiently in time and that when it was presented at 4.00 p.m. on 27-1-1992, it was not accepted since the accounts for the day had been closed and the petitioner was asked to present the same on the next day. On the subsequent day, when it was presented, it was declined to be accepted on the ground that it was belated and therefore, the petitioner was obliged to send it by courier service on 28-11-1992 and ultimately it reached the office of the respondent on 29-1-1992. It is in the said circumstances and placing reliance upon the earlier decisions of this Court, it is contended that there was no basis or justification for the levy of penalty in the case, since the tax was factually paid on the last due date, viz., 24-1 -1992. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made available a xerox copy of the demand draft and the covering letter as also the acknowledgement obtained through the courier service.