Disposed

N.Venkata Reddy, v. The Regional Transport Officer/Licensing Authority

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Mar 2023WP/705/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged demand notice for tax and penalty without check report and sought permission to ply vehicles. Court noted petitioner filed explanation; directed respondent to consider it after enquiry with hearing and pass orders within two weeks. Petitions disposed without final decision on merits pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direct Respondent to consider petitioner's explanation after enquiry with hearing and pass orders within two weeks.

N.Venkata Reddy, Vs The Regional Transport… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH PAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

Rd®
I

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29005 OF 2021 AND 705 OF 2022

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29005 OF 2021 :

¶8

Between: Recldy (Owner of Vehicle Nos. AP05TF2258 and AP05TF2260) S/o ®° ''®®^’ f’'®' ‘’•No- SI-IOS, Gundaiah thote ChSripS:

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

1 Tl, O • , .r. and SamS"pll'?untS?DiS«

¶11

...RESPONP^NTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the T" ®™®"“ ‘’'®'‘ «’®'«™«’. 'he H^gh’^Court may be ‘’'’■oohoe '"O'e particularly one in the nature of dated®"’^! ff om'7® I”® ** ‘'’® R«®POhdent issuing demand AP05TF22M ''®^'®.® ‘’®’""3 '^°®' APQ5TF2258 and nnu^hf u ° demanding for payment of tax & penalty dues without furnishing nnnr^® I' 7k’"i ®*® 'h® 013'™ for tsx and penalty as illegal, arbitrary and 1° Sno‘’nrient h® 'he Hon'ble Court order and consequently direct the narmiH P th present month/quarter by permitting the said vehicles to.ply as Contract Carriage.

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

in thn n®®'’‘'°" «« '^e circumstances stated d^rlrt thn^D^ '1 “.’’f°'‘ °’ ‘’’® P®'‘'°"’ 'he High Court may be pleased to SSAPMTFfflMte’nXmitT 1 T"k ‘ ‘'’® APO5TF2258 pending“dSon^:a™oJ: SiXt SX" •"<»’«’''y/q«.r..riy tax

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶16

in the aSh fi?»H®i„®®®‘'®"?®.''.?'’‘^ praying that in the circumstances stated qram ^aJ of all iurthT® ° a® P®"*'®"' “’® “‘ah Court may be pleased to grant st?y of all further proceedings for recovery of tax and oenaltv hv suspending the demand notice dated 24-11-2021 issued by the 1" Responded

¶17

herein against the vehicles bearing Nos. APO5TF2258 and AP05TF2260 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO: 705 OF 2022 :

¶21

Between:

¶22

N. Venkata Reddy. (Owner of Vehicle Nos. AP05TF2258 and AP05TF2260) S/o. GuntiK^Distri^^^ years, R/o.. D.No. 31-108, Gundaiah thota, Chilakaluripet,

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

AND

¶25

The Regional Transport Officer/Licensing Authority, RTA Office Narasaraopet, Guntur District

¶26

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1’* Respondent not permitting to ply the vehicles bearing Nos. APO5TF2258 and AP05TF2260 on payment of current tax for 1® quarter period, 2022 as illegal, arbitrary and vioative of principles of natural justice.

¶29

lA NO: 1 Of 2022

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1 respondent herein against the vehicles bearing nos. AP 05TF2258 and AP 05TF2260 to permit to ply the buses on receipt/payment of quarterly tax pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO

¶32

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶33

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶34

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶35

WRIT PETITION Nos.29005 of 2021 & 705 of 2022

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

The present Writ Petitions came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶38

W.P.No.29005 of 2021:-

¶39

“to _issue writ, order or direction more particuiarty one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1 respondent issuing demand notice dated 24.11.2021 for vehicle bearing Kos.APOS TF 2258 and APOS TF 2260 demanding for payment of tax & penalty dues without furnishing any check report etc. against the claim for tax and penalty as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the direction of the Hon’ble Court order and consequently to direct the 1^ respondent herein to accept the_ tax** for the present month/quarter by permitting the said vehicles to ply as Contract Carriage gndpixss such other order or orders...."

¶40

W.P.No.705 of 2022:-

¶41

"to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1"*. respondent not permitting to ply the vehicles bearing Nos.APOS TF 2258 and APOS TF 2260 on payment of current tax for 1^ quarter period, 2022 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of naturalJustice and pass such other order or orders...." 2. The issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same. Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of by a

common order.

The petitioner is the owner of the two vehicles bearing Nos.APOS TF 2258 and AP05 TF 2260 and running the same under the name and style of Lakshmi Gayathri Travels by getting permissions from time to time without any latches. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the vehicles were not used like normal days due to COVlD-19, the Department has issued demand notice dated 24.11.2021, demanding the petitioner for payment of tax and penalty dues without furnishing the check report etc. against the tax and penalty; challenging which W.P.No. 19819 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner and the same was disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to file a representation. The petitioner has also submitted a representation on 15.11.2021. In turn the 1st respondent has directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- against each vehicle. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.705 of 2022 to declare the action of the first respondent in not permitting to ply the vehicles on payment of current tax for the first quarter period in which the HonTole Court was pleased to issue an interim order which read as follows:

¶46

"... Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shaU be interim direction to the l-‘ Respondent to permit the petitioner against the vehicles bearing Nos. A.P.05 TP 2258 and A.P.05 TP 2260 to ply the buses on payment of Rs. 3.50,000/- (Rupees Three lakh and

¶47

¶48

) ]

¶49

fifty thousand only) towards demand tax pursuant to the notice, dated 24.11.2021 along with Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) towards present quarterly tax for each bus within a period of one week from today.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

¶50

under similar circumstances, this HonTale Court has disposed of the W.P.No.25432 of 2021 on 03.11.2021 directing the 3*-4 respondent therein to take appropriate action and pass orders on the reply to the show-cause-notice ***•** dated 05.10.2021 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alsQ submitted that the petitioner has paid the said amount, and thereafter, the first respondent has permitted, the petitioner to ply the vehicles on payment of balance of Rs.50,00,000/- towards tax from QE 31.12.2021 against each vehicle.. Hence, the vehicles have already been released.

¶51

6. The respondent No..X .has filed a counter stating that as per Rule 12(A) of A.P Motor Vehicle taxation rules, 1963 in the event of owners of any transport vehicles, taking a decision not to ply the vehicle in a particular quarter, the said owner has to intimate the appropriate authority regarding the stoppage before the commencement of the quarter. However, the petitioner has

¶52

¶53

¶54

failed to do so. Rule 12(A) of A.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules,

¶55

1963 is extracted below:-

¶56

“[12. Appeal. - Any person aggrieved,(a) by an order of levy of additional tax imposed under Section 3-A;

¶57

(b) by an order of levy under Section 6; or

¶58

(c) by the seizure under Section 8,

¶59

may within a period of thirty-days from the date of communication to him of the order of levy or the date of seizure as the case may be, appeal to such authority in the manner and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed.”

¶60

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶61

as the petitioner has already submitted his explanation dated

¶62

29.11.2021 to the demand notice, the respondents are directed to consider the same after conducting an enquiry duly providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶63

Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of. There

¶64

shall be no order as to costs.

¶65

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶66

Sd/- SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT^gGISTRAR^

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

SEcfroNoSlCER

¶69

The Regional Transport Officer/Licensing Authority. RTA Office.

¶70

2 ¥Sp5'aSSiS!:'TS£S5t Department. State of Andhra Pradesh,

¶71

Two CD Copies

MSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:14/03/2023

COMMON ORDER

WP.No.29005 of 2021 and 705 OF 2022

¶77

j:yss __ If (t

¶78

DISPOSING OF WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

1 5 .nil
Ss p-M

N.Venkata Reddy, v. The Regional Transport Officer/Licensing Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Venkata Reddy, v. The Regional Transport Officer/Licensing Authority

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

M.Vijay Kumar, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Imperial Coastal Infra Vs the State of Ap

Shanmugam Kanda Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Karri Rama Lakshmi Vs the State of Ap

Dudekula Dastagiri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nelapudi Raghubabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh