ADIL AHMED KHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, the common question that arises for consideration is: what is tax payable on the vehicles which are granted permits under Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act?

(2.) The vehicles in respect of which the petitioners are seeking relief in these writ petitions are registered in the neighbouring States. We shall refer to the facts stated in W.P.No.14388 of 1985 as representative of facts in other petitions. The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No.KA- 19/347. It is covered by a Pucca All India Tourist KMV No. TVP/Bus/104 95-96 granted under Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') by the Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore. That permit is valid up to 24th May, 2000. The petitioner also obtained authorisation to ply the vehicle in the State of Karnataka, Tamilnadu, Pondichery, Kerala, Maaharastra, Goa and Andhra Pradesh under Rule 83 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Central Rules'). The authorisation is valid up to 24th May, 1996. The petitioner paid tax under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 read with G.O.Ms.No.75 Transport Roads & Buildings (Tr.II) Department dated 27-4-1983 (for short 'G. O.Ms. 75). The petitioner was asked to pay a further sum of Rs.17,000/- for the quarter ending 30th September, 1995 imposing additional tax under G.O. Ms.No.80, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.II) Department Dated 27-4-1993 (for short G.O.Ms.80) by demand notice issued in July, 1995. It is the validity of the demand notices that is assailed in these writ petitions.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is not disputed that the vehicle of the petitioner is covered by all India Tourist vehicle permit, valid up to 24th May, 2000. It is also not disputed that the petitioner holds authorisation under Rule 83 of Central Rules to ply the vehicle in this State. What is stated is that the Government has issued a notification specifying the rates of tax to be levied on the Contract carriages of the other States, covered by the permit issued under Sub-sections (8) and (9) of Section 88 of the Act, which touch the State of Andhra Pradesh for short periods. It is admitted that the petitioner has paid the tax in respect of the vehicle in question at the rate specified in the G.O.Ms.75. But it is stated that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax at the rate of Rs. 125/- per seat for each period of seven (7) days as per G.O.Ms.80 and accordingly the difference of tax is worked out and demanded by the impugned demand and the writ petition has to be dismissed.