S. MAHESWARAN Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent from demanding authorization tax (Rs. 17,600/ -) as authorization fees vide in N.Dis.34390/A2/2015, dated 6.10.2015 for the period from 06.10.2014 to 05.10.2015 for accepting surrender of National Permit in respect of petitioner's Goods Carrier Lorry - TN -28 -L -7686.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is holding goods carriage National Permit issued by the respondent in respect of Vehicle No. TN -28 -L -7686 and the said permit is valid upto 05.10.2015. He has also further stated that the authorisation to ply in other states was valid up to 05.10.2014. However, as the petitioner did not get any booking to his lorry to transport goods to other states, he did not renew the authorisation from 05.10.2014 and he has been plying his lorry only in Tamil Nadu from 5.10.2014 by paying home state tax upto 30.09.2015. It is his further submission that the petitioner has incurred loss in the lorry business and therefore, he decided to sell the vehicle. Hence, On 06.10.2014, he made an application to surrender the permit in Form ACC before the respondent, but, the respondent returned his application on 06.10.2015 directing him to pay the authorisation tax for other states from 06.10.2014 to 05.10.2015 as a pre -condition for accepting the surrender of permit. Assailing the approach adopted by the respondent, learned counsel would submit that the renewal of authorisation to ply the vehicle is optional and if the authorisation is renewed, only then the vehicle can be used in other Sates and if it is not renewed then the vehicle can be used only in home State, namely, the State of Tamil Nadu. In this regard, several writ petitions have been filed from the year 1987 to 1992 before this Court challenging the demand of authorisation tax for the non -renewed period for acceptance of surrender of National permit and this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, quashed the demand and held that authorisation tax cannot be demanded or collected for the non -renewed period. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to one such order passed in W.P. No. 26068 of 2014 in the case of S. Jaganathan v. The Regional Transport Officer dated 30.10.2014. in this regard, it is relevant to extract the relevant paragraphs of the said order as under:

(3.) MR . M.L. Mahendran, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent also taking note of the circular issued by the Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai, agreed that the issue is no longer res integra.