T UMA RANI Vs. LICENSING OFFICER KHAMMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for decision is whether consequent upon the quashing of the G.O. Ms. No. 175, dated 28-5-1985 by this Court by its order dated 29-12-1987 delivered in WP No.9615 of 1986, the petitioner's vehicle is liable to be taxed in terms of G.O. Ms. No.581, dated 31-12-1983 or in terms of G.O. Ms. No.735, dated 12-8-1983.

(2.) This question arises in the following factual background. The petitioner is the registered owner of contract carriage bearing Registration No.TMN 8208, subsequently reassigned AAH 8118. The Government of A.P. issued G.O. Ms. No.581, dated 31-12-1983 fixing the rates of tax on contract carriages on flat basis without providing any concessional rates for short periods at the rate of Rs.275/-per seat per quarter. The validity of the said G.O. was assailed before this Court by the petitioner and others in WP No. 11811 of 1984. During the pendency of that writ petition, by virtue of the interim direction issued by this Court to the Licensing Officer, only the tax at the rate of Rs.100A per seat per quarter was collected. When the matter stood thus, the Government of A.P. issued G.O. Ms.No.175, dated 28-5-1985 revising the mode of taxation. The validity of that G.O. was assailed before this Court in WP No.9615 of 1986. When the matter stood thus, WP No. 11811 of 1994 was closed by this Court permitting the petitioner and similarly circumstanced others to make representation to the concerned Licensing Officer in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 175, dated 28-5-1985. At this stage itself, it is relevant to notice that G.O. Ms. No.581, dated 31-12-1983 is not quashed by this Court. Subsequently, this Court allowed WP No.9615 of 1986 and quashed the G.O. Ms. No.175, dated 28-5-1985. It appears that after the judgment of the Division Bench in WP No.9615 of 1986, the Transport Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad issued circular Memo No.1/34/D2/87, dated 6-1-1986 directing all the Unit Officers of the Motor Vehicles Department to collect quarterly tax or pro-rate tax at the option of the owners of the vehicles. After this event, a show- cause Notice No.902/a2/86, dated 10-9-1990 was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why the difference of tax between the tax payable and paid by her during the period 1-7-1984 to 31-12-1985 should not be recovered. The petitioner submitted her explanation to the show-cause notice as permitted by this Court. On consideration of the explanation of the petitioner, the Licensing Officer, Khammam issued the impugned notice dated 7-8-1991 demanding tax of Rs. 58,213/- for the quarter ending 30-9-1984,31-12-1984,31-3-1985,30-6-1985, 30-9-1985, 31-12-1985. The tax liability is determined by the licensing authority applying G.O. Ms. No.581 in respect of the first four quarters and G.O. Ms. No. 175 in respect of the remaining two quarters. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the same.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when G.O. Ms. No.175 dated 28-5-1985 was quashed by this Court in WP No,9615 of 1986 by its judgment dated 28-12-1987, there was no statutory provision or Government Order to collect the tax on pro rata basis. By this submission, what the learned Counsel wants to tell the Court is that with the quashing of the G.O. Ms. No. 175, dated 28-5-1985, G.O. Ms. No.581, dated 31-12-1983 also got quashed by implication and therefore it was not permissible for the licensing authority, Khammam to apply the non-existing G.O. that is G.O. Ms. No.581, for the purpose of calculation of the tax liability of the petitioner for the quarters ending 30-9-1984, 31-12-1984, 31-3-1985 and 30-6-1985. Further, the contention of the learned Counsel is that since G.O. Ms. No. 175, dated 28-5-1985 was admittedly quashed by the High Court in WP No.9615 of 1986, that G.O. should not be applied to determine the tax liability of the petitioner for the quarters ending 30-9-1985 and 31-12-1985.