G JAGAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KARIMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the Counsel at the stage of admission. The writ petition is filed questioning demand notice dated 18-7-98 issued by the respondent herein demanding the tax of Rs. 21,366/- under the provisions of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and threatening to take coercive action for recovery of the tax. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the show-cause notice and he contended that the vehicle was being used for personal purpose and not as a contract carriage. In the impugned order, the respondent merely observed that the explanation is not satisfactory. The order is bald and reasonless. It is axiomatic that the respondent while determining the tax liability, discharges quasi-judicial functions and the minimum expected of him is to pass a reasoned order adverting to the explanation given by the affected person. The order is vitiated by non-application of mind on the crucial question and non-disclosure of reasons for arriving at the conclusion. On this short ground, the impugned demand notice is set aside and the respondent is directed to pass a fresh order on a de novo consideration. It is less to state that no tax can be collected pursuant to the impugned demand notice. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.