G R KRISHHAPPA Vs. R T O KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The" impugned order in this writ petition is a demand notice dated 11-9-1984 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Kurnool, levying a sum of Rs. 8,280/- towards tax and Rs. 16,560/- towards penalty in respect of the vehicle of the petitioner A.T.T. 2799.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is running a contract carriage alter obtaining special permit under Section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act as and when charted by tourists and pilgrims after paying the motor vehicles tax due to the State of Karnataka. On 31-8-1984 he obtained a special permit from the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, to carry on a tourist party consisting of 35 members to various places in the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh as mentioned in the said permit according to the schedule of programme indicated therein between 1-9-1984 to 6-9-1984. On the last day of the programme, the Regional Transport Authority stopped the vehicle and checked his vehicle and on finding that this vehicle is used as a stage carriage without permit and payment of tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh as a stage carriage, made the above demand which is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel initially tried to challenge the finding of the authority that the vehicle was used ss a stage carriage, but did not pursue that argument as it involves determination of questions of fact, but raised the following three questions. 1. As per the notification in G.O.Ms. No 570, Tr, R & B (Tr, II) dated 28th December, 1983 issued under the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963, (A.P. Act 5 of 1963) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the petitioner is entitled to complete exemption all tax liability in the State under the said Act and the only course open to the authorities in this State is to take a ction under the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. As per G.O.Ms. No. 83 dated 26-3-1980 issued under Section 9 of Act 5 of 1963, he is liable to pay only a reduced rate of tax for one month and not for the entire quarter. 3. In any view, the levy of penalty under the eomposit order along with the levy of tax is illegal. We shall consider these submissions in seriatem.