Karnataka High Court
The Sharada Education Society vs The Deputy Commissioner For on 8 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429
WP No. 105118 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 105118 OF 2014 (T-MVT)
BETWEEN:
THE SHARADA EDUCATION SOCIETY,
VIDYANAGAR, GANGAVATHI,
TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL,
R/BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI T. V. SATYANARAYANA S/O. GOPAL RAO,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
BELGAUM DIVISION BELGAUM, TQ & DIST: BELGAUM.
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
R.T.O OFFICE, GADAG,
TQ & DIST: GADAG, REP. BY R.T.O, GADAG.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Digitally signed by
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR R.T.O OFFICE, KOPPAL,
Date: 2023.12.14
11:58:05 +0530
TQ & DIST: KOPPAL, REP. BY R.T.O KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD 27.08.2013, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, BEARING NO.
PRA.SA.A.KA/DSA/2013-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ORDER DTD
19.03.2014, PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL
NO.DCT/BGM/TAX/02/2013-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429
WP No. 105118 of 2014
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petition is filed challenging the order dated
19.03.2014 in Appeal No.DCT/BGM/TAX/02/2013-14 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Belgaum Division,
Belgaum. In terms of the said order, the appeal filed by the
petitioner is dismissed and the order imposing tax and penalty
to the tune of Rs.87,850/- on the petitioner on the premise that
the school bus is used in contravention of the permit is upheld.
3. Certain other facts which can be noticed from the
pleadings and the documents can be summarized as under:
- On 31.07.2009 the bus owned by the petitioner-
institution was intercepted in Gajendraghad. Admittedly, the
owner had the permit to ply the bus within Koppal District to
carry the students from the school managed by the petitioner-
institution. A report was generated on 31.07.2009 intimating
that the bus was carrying 55 passengers which was not allowed
in terms of the permit and the bus was plying beyond the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429
permitted route. The report is signed by the driver of the bus.
The petitioner has paid the penalty of Rs.5,300/- payable for
not possessing requisite documents at the time of interception.
In the year 2013, the authority issued a demand notice dated
03.08.2013 demanding Rs.5,300/- as penalty for not
possessing documents and Rs.87,850/- as the tax payable
under Section 8(b) of The Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation
Act, 1957.
4. Petitioner claims to have responded to the said notice
on the premise that the vehicle was not used for carrying the
passengers as alleged. However, the petitioner admitted that
necessary documents were not available in the vehicle when
the vehicle was intercepted. The petitioner took a defense that
the vehicle was plying towards Hubballi to carry out repair and
under the relevant provision of law, such movement of the
vehicle is allowed and as such, there is no need to pay the tax.
The allegation that the bus was carrying 55 passengers
unauthorisedly is disputed.
5. The authority demanded documents from the
petitioner to substantiate the contention that the vehicle was
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429
plying to Hubballi for repairs. To the said notice, there was no
response from the petitioner. Since, no documents, except
resolution of the institution is produced to show that the vehicle
was plying to Hubballi for setting the vehicle repaired, the
authority demanded tax of Rs.87,850/- by invoking Section
8(b) of The Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an
appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority
has dismissed the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
there is no proof to hold that the petitioner's vehicle was
carrying 55 passengers on 31.07.2009. It is the contention of
the petitioner that the vehicle was proceeding towards Hubballi
for the purpose of repairs and there were no passengers in the
bus. He would contend that imposition of tax under Section
8(b) of The Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 is bad
in law.
8. This Court has perused the records.
9. It is relevant to note that on 31.07.2009, a report
was generated alleging that the vehicle was intercepted and 55
passengers were traveling in the said vehicle. The documents
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429
would reveal that the document is signed by the driver of the
bus. The fact that the vehicle was intercepted, a report was
generated and the driver signed the report are not in dispute.
In addition to that, the defense that the vehicle was plying to
Hubballi for repairs is not established as no particulars are
produced for having taken the vehicle to service station at
Hubballi or having got the vehicle serviced/repaired at Hubballi
or the documents relating to payment of service charges.
Though, the petitioner has produced the resolution to show that
the management has passed the resolution to have the vehicle
repaired in Hubballi, the actual proof of repair is not forth
coming. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the authority has established that the vehicle was carrying
55 passengers on 31.07.2009. Admittedly, there was no
permit to ply the vehicle in Gajendragad where the vehicle was
intercepted and also there was no permit to carry 55
passengers.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge is
that there is no power under the Act to impose double the tax
as a penalty and he would rely upon the judgment of this Court
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429
in the case of JAYANNA vs ASSISTANT REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICER reported in LAWS(KAR) 1988 1 28.
11. The said judgment was decided interpreting the law
that was prevailing in 1984. Section 8(b) of The Karnataka
Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 was amended in the year
1989. Section 8(b) reads as under:
8-B. Further additional Tax for misuse of motor
vehicle.- When any motor vehicle in respect of
which tax has been paid is misused or used not in
accordance with the purpose for which the vehicle is
registered or the permit is granted or is used in such
manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle
in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable,
the registered owner or person who is in possession
or control of such vehicle, shall for such misuse other
than the one under sub-section (4) of Section 3, pay
a further additional tax of a sum of which is equal to
double the difference between the tax already paid
and the tax which is payable in respect of such
vehicle for the period for which the higher rate of tax
is payable in respect of such vehicle for the period
for which the higher rate of tax is payable in
consequence of its being misused or used not in
accordance with the purpose for which the vehicle is
registered or the permit is granted.
On reading of Section 8(b), it is apparent that the authority has
the power to impose double the tax as a penalty for violation.
Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is
no merit in the writ petition.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BRN
.
