V RAMANATHAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the respondent in R.No. 31723/E3/91 dated 11-11-1991 and quash the same.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the petitioner's mother late Chellapappu Ammal was holding one stage carriage permit and three spare buses. The permit holder died on 30-8-1991, and the petitioner has filed an application under the Motor Vehicles Act for transfer of the permit in his name and the same is pending. Being the legal representative of the stage carriage permitholder, petitioner is now operating the bus. The reason for filing the writ petition is that on 11-11-1991, respondent issued a memo, asking the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 37,260/-, within seven days. The notice was issued in the name of petitioner's mother. Since the petitioner is interested in plying the bus, he received the same. As per the memo, the petitioner has been directed to remit a sum of Rs. 37,260/- for the period from 1-1-1987 to 31-3-1987 and from 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1988, for the spare buses TDY 1699 and TNX 6226. It is said that the tax has been paid for the said period at the rate of 3/4th of the tax payable in respect of the route bus. The amount claimed by the memo is the difference of 1/4th tax. It is said that the demand made by the respondent is highly illegal, and it is patently unauthorised since the same is on the basis of an audit report. It is his case that on the basis of an audit report, the liability should not be fastened on him, especially when the respondent is not entitled to demand tax.

(3.) I heard the learned Additional Government Pleader also.