Disposed

Kadali Dharma Raju v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Mar 2023WP/1875/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a penalty imposed for delayed payment of quarterly motor vehicle tax during the COVID-19 lockdown, arguing financial hardship and prior compliance with government notifications. The court remitted the matter to the respondent authority to dispose of the grievance on sympathetic grounds rather than deciding the substantive penalty claim itself.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to file a fresh application with the 3rd respondent to consider the penalty matter on sympathetic grounds within two weeks; directing the 3rd respondent to pass orders within

Kadali Dharma Raju Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.1875 of 2023

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶5

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶6

“....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Order dt.28.10.2022, passed by the 2^nd respondent in proceedings R.No.75/A2/2021 thereby confirming the Demand Notice issued by the 3^rd Respondent in proceedings in R.No.75/A1/2021, dated: 20 05 2022, imposing penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- for not paying the vehicle tax of Rs.1,50,000/for the period 1-10-2020 to QE: 31-12-2020 and consequential action of respondents in not entertaining the petitioner’s request for transfer of ownership of vehicle bearing Registration No.AP05 TE 2555 on his name, due to non-payment of such penalty, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 and the Rules framed there under and offends article 14, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to receive, process and complete an application for transfer of the ownership of said vehicle, without insisting upon said penalty and pass.....”

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that, the vehicle (Veera Bus) bearing Registration No.AP05 TE 2555 was owned by the Mr. V.V.Ramana Murthy Naidu, who is the registered owner of Ramana Tours & Travels and it was used as a passenger bus by duly obtaining a permit.

¶8

While so, when the said Mr.V.V.Ramana Murthy Naidu intended to sell the said vehicle, the petitioner has purchased the said vehicle by paying the remaining loan instalments to Indostar

¶9

¶10

Capital Finance Limited as the vehicle was under hypothecation with the said finance company. Thereafter, the petitioner started plying the said bus for carrying passengers by paying the requisite taxes regularly.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner is that, during the lockdown period, due to Covid-19 in the year 2020, the petitioner could not ply the vehicle as it was stopped on the road, which affected the livelihood of the petitioner. The petitioner lost his source of income and was unable to pay quarterly motor vehicle advance tax for the quarter 01.10.2020 to 31.12.2020.

¶12

Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the State Government has issued notifications extending the grace period for payment of Motor Vehicle quarterly tax for the quarter 01.10.2020 to 31.12.2020 vide G.O.Rt.No.1, dated 05.01.2021 by the 1^st respondent.

¶13

However, the petitioner had paid the taxes with a delay of 3 days, but could not pay within the grace period. But, however, vide the impugned demand notice dated 20.05.2022, the petitioner was demanded to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the quarterly tax and the penalty of Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioner has already paid the quarterly tax of Rs.2,50,000/- on 05.08.2021 but

¶14

¶15

with regard to the penalty of Rs.3,00,000/-, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶16

This Hon’ble Court vide an interim order stayed the demand notice on the condition of the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.75,000/- and the petitioner has paid the same. The case of the petitioner is that, as on today, he is not in a position to pay the remaining balance amount of penalty as ordered in the demand notice and also due to his finance condition, the petitioner intends to sell away the vehicle to third parties by transferring the said vehicle and requested this Court to consider his case on special grounds.

¶17

As the petitioner has already paid the quarterly tax of Rs.2,50,000/- as per the demand notice, the only question for consideration before this Court is with regard to the penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- payable by the petitioner and thereafter, in pursuance of the interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioner has also paid a further amount of Rs.75,000/-. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner could not ply his vehicle during the lockdown and inspite of it, he made his best efforts to pay the quarterly tax as per G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 05.01.2021, however, with a delay of three (3) days. Therefore, the case of the petitioner can be considered on sympathetic grounds.

¶18

¶19

In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make a fresh application to the 3^rd respondent ventilating his grievance within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the order and on filing such application, the 3^rd respondent shall pass appropriate orders considering the same as a special case on sympathetic grounds within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter.

¶20

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

As a sequel, miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶22

SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

28.03.2023 psr/kbs

176

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶27

(Disposed of)

¶28

Writ Petition No.1875 of 2023

¶29

Date: 28.03.2023

¶30

Psr/kbs

Kadali Dharma Raju v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadali Dharma Raju v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.V. Narasimhamurthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Babu Rao, Vs The Executive Engineer

The Managing Director Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dutta Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Abdul Subhan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Kareemulla Vs State of Andhra Pradesh