THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.7313 & 7330 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:-
As the issues raised in both the writ petitions are one
and the same and since both the writ petitions had been filed
by the same writ petitioner, they are being disposed of, by way
of a common order.
2. The subject matter of W.P.No.7313 of 2022 is the
payment of tax and penalty in relation to a contract carriage
vehicle (bus) bearing Registration No.AP 39 TK 9044,
belonging to the petitioner. The subject matter of W.P.No.7330
of 2022 is the payment of tax and penalty in relation to a
contract carriage vehicle (bus) bearing Registration No.AP 39
TK 9045 belonging to the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that both the
vehicles, on account of the Covid-19 pandemic had been taken
off the road and were neither used nor kept for use on public
roads from 01.01.2021. As the petitioner was intending to use
these vehicles from 01.09.2021, he had approached the 2nd
respondent with a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- dated
31.08.2021, for receiving the tax from 01.09.2021 and to grant exemption from 01.01.2021 to 31.08.2021. The petitioner contends that in view of the Judgment of this Court dated 01.09.2021 in W.P.No.13780 of 2020 and batch, the petitioner was entitled to approach the respondent authorities, for grant 2 RRR,J W.P.Nos.7313 & 7330 of 2022 of exemption by demonstrating that the vehicles were neither used nor kept for use in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the period from 01.01.2021 to 31.08.2021.
4. The petitioner approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.19894 of 2021 in relation to vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TK 9044, and W.P.No.19927 of 2021 in relation to vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TK 9045 on the ground that the respondent authorities were not receiving tax from 01.09.2021 onwards. These two writ petitions were disposed of by this Court on 13.09.2021, directing the respondents, to accept tax being paid by the petitioner from 01.09.2021, leaving it open to the petitioner to file a representation before the 2nd respondent authority along with necessary material to demonstrate that the vehicles had not been used or kept for use in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the period from 01.01.2021 to 31.08.2021.
5. In compliance of the orders of this Court, the respondent authorities accepted the demand draft given by the petitioner along with an application dated 18.09.2021 and permitted the petitioner to ply his vehicles.
6. The 2nd respondent had subsequently issued a show cause notice dated 29.11.2021 in the case of both vehicles, calling upon the petitioner to show cause, and explain within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, as to why action should not be taken against him, for collection of tax and penalty, for the two quarters ending 3 RRR,J W.P.Nos.7313 & 7330 of 2022 30.06.2021 and 30.09.2021. The petitioner is said to have given a detailed explanation to these show cause notices on 13.12.2021. However, the 2nd respondent is said to have issued the impugned demand notices dated 24.12.2021 vide R.No.378/B4/2021, calling upon the petitioner to pay tax and penalty of Rs.8,50,000/- along with compounding fee of Rs.10,000/-, in relation to the vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TK 9045, and a demand notice dated 24.12.2021 vide R.No.375/B4/2021, for payment of tax and penalty of Rs.13 lakhs along with compounding fee of Rs.10,000/- in relation to vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TK 9044. Aggrieved by the said demand notices, these two writ petitions have been filed.
7. In both these cases the vehicle check reports issued by the Assistant Motor vehicle Inspector and the details obtained from Toll Plazas of the National Highway Authorities is the basis on which, the 2nd respondent held that the vehicles of the petitioner had been used during the relevant period. The petitioner contends that such a view could not have been taken by the 2nd respondent.
8. Sri B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the vehicle check reports relied upon by the 2nd respondent are bald, and created vehicle check reports which have not followed the procedures set out under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules there under apart from the provisions of the A.P.Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. He submits that in the absence of the necessary details in these 4 RRR,J W.P.Nos.7313 & 7330 of 2022 vehicle check reports and in view of the non compliance of the requirements of these Rules, the said vehicle check reports cannot be looked into. He further submits that the details obtained from the Toll Plazas of the National Highway Authority of India cannot be relied upon for proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act or the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act as the authorities under these acts do not come within the ambit of National Highway Authority of India. He submits that the information gathered from the National Highway Authority of India cannot be utilized by the respondents, for determining the liability of the petitioner under the Motor Vehicle Act or the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act.
9. It is the admitted case on either side that if a vehicle has been used or kept for use on public roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the owner of such a vehicle is required to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Both the vehicles of the petitioners are admittedly contract carriage vehicles which are required to pay tax as set out in the schedule for such purpose. The only question that remains is whether the vehicles of the petitioner had been used or kept for use on rhe public roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is the contention of the petitioner that neither of his vehicles had been used in the period 01.01.2021 to 31.08.2021. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent has relied upon the vehicle 5 RRR,J W.P.Nos.7313 & 7330 of 2022 check reports recorded by the respective Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors and the toll plaza records to demonstrate that the vehicles of the petitioner had been kept in used within the relevant period.
10. Sri B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both sources of information relied upon by the 2nd respondent have to be disregarded for the reasons set out by him above. The details obtained by the 2 nd respondent from the toll plazas maintained by the National Highway Authority of India are computerized records which show movement of the vehicles of the petitioner. Sri B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel has not pointed out any provision of law which prohibits the 2nd respondent from relying upon the said records. His contention that the records cannot be looked into as there is no positive provision cannot be accepted. A public authority is entitled to rely upon such sources of information as are available to him in the course of deciding any question of fact. Further, in the present case, the 2nd respondent had shared the details of the movement of vehicles before the toll plazas with the petitioner and called upon him to rebut the same. Sri B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this point, submits that the show cause notices only mentioned that an enclosure is being attached to the show cause notices. However, no such details were attached to the show cause notices. This contention also cannot be accepted as no such plea was raised in the 6 RRR,J W.P.Nos.7313 & 7330 of 2022 objections filed by the petitioner, to the show cause notices, before the 2nd respondent. To obviate any further dispute on this issue, the learned Government Pleader was also called upon to produce show cause notices in the office of the 2nd respondent. Upon production, it is clear that a list of the movements recorded at the toll plazas had been attached to the show cause notices. In these circumstances, the finding of the 2nd respondent that the vehicles of the petitioner had been kept in use on the public roads in this state, during the relevant period, cannot be rejected.
11. In view of the fact that there is regular movement of the vehicles of the petitioner, as recorded in the toll plaza data, the impugned demand notices cannot be treated to be arbitrary or in violation of any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. In view of these findings, the questions of whether vehicles check reports were in accordance with the Rules or not would be irrelevant. Once it is found that the vehicles of the petitioner have been used on the public roads during a certain period, the vehicle tax payable for such periods for such vehicles cannot be evaded. The Petitioner would be liable to pay such tax on both vehicles.
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are devoid of any merits and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
7
RRR,J W.P.Nos.7313 & 7330 of 2022 Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 22-04-2022 RJS 8 RRR,J W.P.Nos.7313 & 7330 of 2022 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7313 & 7330 of 2022 Date : 22.04.2022 RJS 9 RRR,J W.P.Nos.7313 & 7330 of 2022