S MARIAMMAL Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER CHEPAUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records of the 3rd respondent relating to the proceedings in R. No. D2/40275/2002 dated 5.12.2002, and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to refund the Motor Vehicles Tax collected for the period, from 1.8.2001 to 31.8.2001, in respect of Vehicle number TN-47/b-6699, to the petitioner.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is holding a stage carriage permit and operating the bus on the route from Dindigul to Karur. Since the petitioner had purchased a new chasis and as the body construction of the vehicle would take two months, the petitioner had applied for permission to pay two months Motor Vehicles Tax, for the months of July and August, to the first respondent. The first respondent had given permission to the petitioner to pay two months tax, subject to the condition that the petitioner should not apply for stoppage of the existing vehicle from 1.9.2001, and on the condition that if the new vehicle is not ready for replacement, full quarter tax with penalty would be collected from the petitioner. Since the new vehicle was made ready for replacement during the end of the month of July 2001, the petitioner had applied for replacement and stoppage of the existing vehicle from 1.8.2001. The first respondent had allowed replacement and stoppage of the vehicle on 9.8.2001 and the petitioner had paid full quarter tax for the replaced vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner had claimed that she is eligible for the refund of tax for one full month of August i. e. from 1.8.2001 to 31.8.2001 as per Sec.13 (1) of the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1974. As the reasons stated by the petitioner, for the refund of tax were refused by the first respondent, on 30.10.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an Appeal before the second respondent and the same was also rejected by the order, dated 8.4.2002. As against the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner had preferred a revision before the third respondent. The third respondent had rejected the said revision, by his proceedings Pro. R. No. D2/40275/2002, dated 5.12.2002, stating that there is no provision under Tamilnadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1974, for refund of the proportionate tax which was paid by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.