SAPTHAGIRI EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have sought for writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent dated 22.07.2002 made in R.No.D3/27639/2002 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to collect tax under item 8(a) of the first schedule to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:THE petitioners trust have established Engineering Colleges under the name and style of Sri Sairam Engineering College, Poonthandalam Dharkast, West Tambaram, Chennai.44 and Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering at Pennalur, Sriperumbudur and they acquired a fleet of 20 buses and applied for necessary permits for the vehicles for the use of their students and staff. THE term Education Institution is defined under Section 2 (11) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the object of the said definition is that the vehicles should be used solely for the purpose of transporting their students and staff in connection with its activities. Section 3 (h) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding necessity of permits would not apply to any transport vehicle owned and used solely for the purpose of any educational institution. Subsequently the said Section 66 (3)(h) was deleted with effect from 14.08.2000 and consequent upon such deletion, permits were granted under Section 76 of the Act r/w Rule 169 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules in the prescribed form under Rule 170 (viii) of the Rules. THE applications of the petitioners for necessary permits were considered and while issuing permits, the respondent has mentioned the name of the petitioners as holder of the permit and it is also stated that the vehicle has to be used for transporting students and staff of the educational institutions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the exercise of power, for imposing liability on the petitioners with penalty being quasi judicial, it is incumbent on the respondent to issue show cause and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners before making demand for tax/penalty.