Y PEDA VENKAIAH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of a contract carriage, APG 7623 and has been paying tax at Rs. 40.00 per seat for quarter, being the tax for such a contract carriage under the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (referred to in this judgment as the Act). He paid the requisite tax till the quarter ending 31/03/1974. In the first week of February, 1974, after having obtained a temporary permit, for the journey Rajupalem on Tirupati and back, he gave the vehicle on hire to a tourist party. On 12/02/1974 the vehicle was stopped and checked at Nellore while proceeding from Tirupati towards Guntur. It was found that there were several groups of persons who had boarded the bus for getting down at different places and paid different fares. In the circumstances, the authorities were of the view that the vehicle was being used as a stage carriage. A notice, dated 16-2-74 was issued by the Regional Transport Officer asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not be asked to pay tax on the footing that the vehicle was a stage carriage. The difference of the tax was Rs. 4480.00 for the whole quarter ending 31-3-1974. The petitioner was asked to show cause why this amount along with penalty should not be collected from him. After considering the petitioners explanation an order dated 10/04/1974 was passed, in which it was held that the petitioner was liable to pay the difference of tax of Rupees 4480/-. In addition to this, a penalty of Rs. 4480.00 was also levied.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the issue of an appropriate writ, quashing the said order. It is contended inter alia that the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act or the rules made thereunder do not empower the licensing authority to levy the difference of tax and penalty in the event of a contract carriage being used as a stage carriage. The only remedy is to take appropriate proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further contended that in any event the respondent erred in directing the payment of the entire difference of tax for the full quarter, though the alleged offence took place only in the second month of the quarter. It was submitted that the difference would be only 2/3rd of the quarterly tax as per R. 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Tax Rules.

(3.) When the writ petition was heard in the first instance by Chinnappa Reddy, J. we find from the order of reference, two contentions were raised by the learned counsel. The first was whether the petitioner was entitled to claim the benefit under Section 9(1) of the Act. This G. O. was not specifically referred to in the writ petition, but seems to have been relied on at the time of arguments in support of the contention that as the petitioner was found to be playing his vehicle as a stage carriage only in the second month, even if he is liable to pay tax on that footing, he was not liable for the tax for the whole quarter, but only for 4/5th of the tax as provided in the above G. O. The second contention was that the petitioner was not liable to pay penalty. Though in the writ petition the reason why penalty was not payable is not mentioned, this submission is made on the strength of the decision of a bench of this Court in S. V. Rao v. Joint R. T. O. Vijayawada AIR 1971 Andh Pra 186 : (1971 Tax LR 556) in which it was held that if there is no demand of tax earlier the petitioner cannot be said to have committed default in payment of tax and therefore no penalty can be levied under Section 6 of the Act.