SYED HAFIZ Vs. LICENSING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the registered owner of a medium goods vehicle bearing No. ABC 5171. The vehicle has a public carrier permit valid upto 2-6-1994 and it is authorised to ply within the State. The tax of Rs. 460/- for the quarter ending 30-6-1990 was paid by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle is used mostly for the purpose of transporting milk and vegetables by vendors who accompany the goods. On 31-5-1990, the vehicle was chacked by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Piler on Piler-kallur road. It was found that the vehicle was carrying ten persons out of whom six were a group of passengers who paid Rs.10/- each. It was noted in the check report that the vehicle was fitted with seats on both sides to carry 12 passengers conveniently. On the allegation that the vehicle was misused as passenger vehicle, the vehicle was seized. On the same day, i.e., 31-5-1990, the licensing officer (respondent herein) issued a show cause notice as to why a tax of Rs.3,600/- for the quarter ending 30-6-1990 and penalty as per rules should not be collected from him. The tax of Rs. 3,600/- was calculated at the rate applicable to contract carriages, on the basis of seating capacity of 12 multiplied by Rs,300/- per seat per quarter. The show cause notice was served on him on 13-9-1990. Stating that there was no explanation on the part of the petitioner, the respondent confirmed the proposed levy of tax and also the levy of penalty at double the tax, by an order dated 22-11-1990. In all, a sum of Rs. 10,800/- was demanded. It is against this demand, the present writ petition was filed.

(2.) The petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation on 17-9-1992 Stating that the seats were temporarily made to hold the goods and that it was not fitted with permanent seats. Such explanation is not found in the record and the filing of such explanation has been denied by the respondent. In the record, there is a representation dated 17-9-1990 wherein the petitioner requested for one month's time to pay the amount and to get the vehicle released.

(3.) This Court by an interim order dated 28-12-1990 directed release of the vehicle on condition of the petitioner paying the entire amount of tax mentioned in the demand notice.