G RAMI REDDY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by one G. Rami Reddy, the petitioner, challenging the demand notice dated 17-10-1990 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Kurnool in Rc.No. 6851/A3/90 calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 10,500/- towards tax and penalty of Rs. 5,250/- aggregating Rs. 15,750/- for the quarter ending 30-9-90 in respect of the district contract carriage bearing registration No. MYK 4659 owned by the petitioner. In the demand notice the allegation mentioned is that within the stipulated time as required under Sec. 12-A of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules the petitioner failed to pay the tax although the vehicle was covered by a permit valid upto 30-3-95 and fitness certificate valid up to 7-2-1991. The impugned notice was preceded by a show cause notice dated 19-11-90. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that the stoppage report was submitted by him under a certificate of posting dated 28.6.90 along with the explanation he also enclosed the certificate of posting dated 28-6-90 issued by the Bethamcherla Post Office. He also mentioned that the Motor Vehicles Inspector verified the stoppage report submitted by him and found as of fact that with effect from 1.7.90 the vehicle did not ply. Rejecting the explanation the impugned demand notice was issue by the Regional Transport Officer, Kurnool.

(2.) Shri Sikhamani, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when once the petitioner had submitted the stoppage report along with the certificate of posting dated 28-6-90 it was incumbent on the part of the Regional Transport Officer to take notice of it and refrain from imposing tax. Any vehicle in respect of which an intimation of stoppage of use was sent by the owner of person having possession of the vehicle to the Licensing Officer before the commencement of the quarter for which tax is due, no tax is liable to be paid under Rule 12-A of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules since the presumption under Sec. 3 that the motor vehicle "shall be deemed to be kept for use and is liable to tax" become inoperable.

(3.) We would have considered this contention at greater length but for the fact that the record produced before us by the learned Government Pleader clearly shows that the stoppage report submitted by the petitioner bears the date 30-6-90 whereas his assertion in the explanation was that even by 28-6-90 he submitted the stoppage report under certificate of posting. We are, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner did not submit the stoppage report before the commencement of the relevant quarter and, therefore, he is not entitled to take advantage of Rule 12-A of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules. The levy of tax of Rs. 10,500/- is, therefore, perfectly justified.