N KESAVAIAH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER ANANTAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as the main question involved in them is whether the Licensing Officer is entitled to demand tax for the entire quarter and also levy penalty, when a goods vehicle deviates from the route for which the permit is granted, notwithstanding the fact that tax was paid to ply it on a specified route. To appreciate the point involved, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in each of the two petitions.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P. No. 1315 of 1969 is the owner of a goods vehicle MYT 3715 registered as a public carrier in Mysore State. He was granted a licence under the Inter-State agreement to ply his goods vehicle on a specified route in the two States. It was found by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector on 3rd January, 1969, that the goods vehicle was plying on a route not specified in the permit over a distance of six miles. It is for this deviation from the route that a notice was issued to show cause why tax for the entire quarter should not be collected in addition to penalty. The petitioner explained in his written representation that the deviation was only for a short distance of six miles ; that he had paid tax for that month to this State and therefore he cannot be asked to pay tax onre again, nor can penalty be levied, and that action, if any, should have been taken against him under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, but not under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.

(3.) The petitioner in W.P. No. 2995 of 1969 is the owner of a goods vehicle MYR 4447, and it is covered by a public carrier permit issued by the Mysore Transport Authority on an inter-State route between the State of Mysore and Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner's vehicle was found plying on 3rd September, 1965 at Kodikonda in Andhra Pradesh deviating from the route for which the permit was granted. The Regional Transport Officer then issued a notice to show cause why tax should not be collected from the petitioner under section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963, for plying on an unauthorised route and also penalty as proposed in the notice. To this notice, it was answered by the petitioner that he had paid the tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh also, and it is not a case where the vehicle was used on the route without payment of tax, and that mere deviation from the specified route does not empower the Licensing Officer to collect tax once again for the same quarter in respect of which tax has already been paid, nor does it empower him to levy penalty. This explanation was not accepted by the Licensing Officer, with the result that he issued the impugned demand notice for collection of the tax and penalty as specified therein.