NANDYALA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the demand notice dtd. 16/2/2021 in R.No.122/2020 issued by the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent herein issued show cause notice in R.No.122/C1/2020 dtd. 4/12/2020 under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (hereinafter called, 'the Act'), directing the petitioner herein, who is the owner of the bus bearing No.AP 04T 8197, to pay an amount of Rs.85,740.00 towards taxes and penalty for the quarters ending 30/6/2020, 30/9/2020 and 31/12/2020 and the petitioner was also informed to avail the tax exemption as facilitated by the Government of India in the letter No.RT1101202/2019-MVL (Pt-8) dtd. 30/3/2020, as provided under Rule 12A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called, 'the Rules'), the transport vehicle operators, those who intend not to operate the vehicles under pandemic Covid-19, may exercise their option by filing stoppage of their vehicle before the concerned Registering Authorities by intimating the fact to get exemption of tax in respect of their stopped vehicles within time stipulated under the said Rule.

(2.) For the show cause notice issued by the respondentauthorities herein, the petitioner herein has issued reply notice dtd. 10/2/2021 and in nutshell, raised the following grounds: The tax levied since shall not exceed twice and the tax for an annual licence shall not exceed four times the tax for a quarterly licence and the Government may grant rebates as may be prescribed in the case of half yearly and annual licences. Rule 12A of the Rules envisages for the different purpose, if the registered owners intend to stop the vehicle for the maintenance repairs or lapse of permit, the registered owner has to submit the advance stoppage report prior to the commencement of the ensuing quarter, but here, it is a different situation and circumstance that due to the ethnic pandemic, the entire universe had had came to standstill and that the respondentauthorities cannot misuse Rule 12A of the said Rules. Tax has to be paid on the motor vehicle in advance for the purpose of using on public roads, it is in the concept of pay and use. It is further asserted in the reply that in pursuance of the same, the State Legislature had enacted the present Act, in which Sec.

(3.) empowers the State Government to collect the taxes on motor vehicles by issuing notifications from time to time. As per Sec. 3 of the Act, the vehicle should be used or kept for use and the vehicle was not used in the pandemic. Therefore, the respondent-authorities cannot impose taxes and penalty and Rule 12A of the Rules is not in rem and the said Rule cannot override the statutes. In the said reply notice, it was asserted that the vehicles do not use the roads notwithstanding that they are registered under the Act and prayed to drop further course of action by accepting the tax from 1/2/2021. For which the respondent has passed an order in R.No.122/C1/2020 dtd. 16/2/2021 and issued demand notice under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Act, directing the petitioner herein to pay tax of Rs.85,740.00 together with penalty for the quarter ending 30/6/2020, 30/9/2020 and 31/12/2020, stating that failing which, the action will be taken under the Revenue Recovery At, 1864. 3. The said demand notice was assailed before this Court on the grounds that tax shall be levied if the vehicle is used or kept for use in a public place in the State and the vehicle was not seized or detained in respect of which tax is due under the Act, it shall be deemed that the vehicle was not used or kept in use in the public place under Sec. 8 of the Act and it is also no need to intimate the respondent-authorities and Rule 12A of the Rules envisages for the different purpose, if the registered owner intend to stop the vehicle for the maintenance, repairs or lapse of permit, the registered owner has to submit the advance stoppage report prior to the commencement of the ensuing period. Therefore, the respondent-authorities are precluded from issuing the demand notice for the amount, as indicated above.