LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-174

TVL SUGANTHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

Decided On January 21, 2008
Tvl Suganthi Educational Trust Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, 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 petitioner is concerned.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner trust has established an Engineering College under the name and style of G.K.M. College of Engineering and Technology, Thiruvenjeri Village, Mopperi Road, Chennai -78 and they have acquired a fleet of eight buses and applied for necessary permits for the vehicles for the use of the college students and staff. The term "Education Institution Bus" 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. Earlier, as per Section 3(h) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, permits were not required for education institution vehicles. Subsequently, the said Section 66(3)(h) has been deleted with effect from 14.08.2000 and consequently, permits are being 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 application of the petitioner for necessary permits was considered and while issuing permit, the respondent mentioned the name of the petitioner (Trust) as the holder of the permit and it is further stated that the vehicles would be used for transporting students and staff of the educational institutions owned by the petitioner.

(3.) MRS .Radha Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is totally violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given any show cause as to why the tax for "Private Service Vehicles" should be collected with penalty. She further submitted that all along the respondent had been accepting the tax applicable for educational institution bus i.e., at the rate of Rs.500/ - per quarter and the petitioner had been paying the same on annual basis, including the current year 2002, without any objections.