S K M S TRAVELS Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Transport Commissioner, Chennai in Memo No. 6491 I/e4/86 dated 4. 7. 1996. The petitioner is the owner of the stage carriage plying on the inter‑state route Bangalore to Kelamangalam. The Permit of the above route was issued by State Transport authority of Karnataka State and it is covered by the inter‑state agreement entered into between the States of Mysore and Tamil Nadu in the year 1973.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the permit was originally given to the petitioner's father Chuddappah whereby he was entitled to entry of vehicle into Tamil Nadu State free of tax and was liable only for payment of tax to the primary State. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for variation of the route up to royacottah and the primary Authority in Karnataka State granted the variation. However, the State Transport Authority of Tamil Nadu refused to counter sign the variation. THE petitioner therefore filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, to direct the authority to counter sign the variation which was allowed and the State transport authority made the counter signature for the variation subject to payment of tax to Tamil Nadu.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that in the impugned order itself it is observed that for the period for which the tax is demanded, there was an interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court. Further, petitioner submits that as directed by the Division Bench, writ petitioner did not ply the vehicle on the extended route from 1. 9. 1987. THE petitioner has complied with all the conditions imposed by the Court and therefore the demand for penalty is liable to be set aside. THE learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order of this Court passed in W. P. No. 13028 of 1995 dated 3. 7. 2002 in similar circumstances where tax and penalty was demanded and the Court granted interim orders subject to payment of arrears of tax in installments. In so far as penalty is concerned learned counsel for the petitioner referred to para. 3 of the judgment which reads as follows: "the learned counsel has also relied upon an unreported judgment dated 9. 2. 1999 in WP. No. 1901 of 1999 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, holding that if stay is granted as against the demand of tax, the operator is not liable to pay penalty for the period covered by the stay as the late payment of tax was due to intervention of the Court. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not liable to pay the Penalty of Rs. 13,10,695. I agree with the said order and hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay the penalty demanded by the respondent. "