Syed Abdul Subhan vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1967 AP

    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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

RRR,J W.P.Nos.7313 & 7330 of 2022