Disposed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Officer

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2012WP/18489/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified an order directing the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation to deposit 35% of tax in cash and furnish a bank guarantee for the remainder. The court replaced the deposit requirement with 20% within six weeks to enable the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal on merits. Contentions regarding tax levies were left open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; petitioner directed to deposit 20% tax within six weeks; appellate authority to dispose of appeal on merits.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF JULY, 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL

¶6

W.P. Nos.18489 – 18493 OF 2012(T-MVT) AND W.P. Nos.18494 – 18498 OF 2012(T-MVT)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES, K. H. ROAD, BANGALORE 560027 REPTD. BY ITS LAW OFFICER.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri. S. V. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOLAR REGION, KOLAR, KARNATAKA.

¶13

2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AND APPELLATE AUTHROITY, PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESHWARAIAH TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI , BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By Sri. T. K. VEDAMURTHY, GP)

¶16

¶17

THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 06.01.2012 REJECTING I.A. 1 FILED IN TAX APPEALS, NO.1/2011, I.A. 1 FILED IN TAX APPEAL. 2/2011 AND TAX APL. 3/2011 RESPECTIVELY IN C1 TO C3.

¶18

These petitions coming on for Hearing, this day the court made the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The question raised in these writ petitions is with regard to the legality and correctness of the order dt. 6-

¶21

1-12 passed by the Appellate Authority on I.A.No.1 in the appeals filed in Appeal Nos. 1, 2 and 3/11.

¶22

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, which is a State Government undertaking is before this Court making a grievance against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, directing the petitioner – Corporation to deposit 35% of the tax demanded in cash

¶23

¶24

and to furnish Bank guarantee from any nationalised Bank for the remaining amount. The petitioner has been directed to comply with the said requirement within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the impugned order, failing which, the appeals filed shall stand dismissed in terms of Rule 31(3)(b) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957.

¶25

Petitioner had in fact approached this Court earlier in W.P.No. 41335 – 339/2011 and connected cases, challenging a similar order passed earlier dismissing the appeals on the ground that deposit of the amount as directed and as required under the Rules had not been made. This Court allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to the authority and set aside the order impugned therein. Thereafter, an application was made by the petitioner seeking dispensation of the requirement to deposit the amount or to furnish

¶26

¶27

security for the amount and the tax demanded, pending disposal of the appeal. This application has been disposed of declining the relief as sought and directing the Corporation to deposit 35% of the tax and furnish Bank guarantee for the rest. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶28

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶29

Sri. Krishna Swamy and the learned Government Pleader Sri. Vedamurthy.

¶30

Elaborate arguments are addressed on the various questions raised.

¶31

During the course of arguments and keeping in mind the nature of the questions raised, particularly having regard to the findings recorded by the Regional Transport Authority in paragraphs 16 to 18, Sri.

¶32

¶33

S.V.Krishna Swamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is not liable to pay tax in terms of the provisions contained under Sec. 3(1) or 9(1) and the liability if any, of the Corporation can only be under Sec. 10, having regard to the fact that these questions have to be addressed before the Appellate Authority on merits, the Corporation, for the purpose of entertaining the appeals, is willing to pay 20% of the total amount assessed as per the order impugned before the Appellate Authority without prejudice to its contentions.

¶34

Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, and having been confronted with the findings recorded by the taxation authority, Kolar in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the order, submits that, no doubt the question whether the petitioner is liable for levy of tax as per, Sec. 10 or under Sec. 3, is a matter to be agitated before the

¶35

¶36

Appellate Authority, but for the purpose of enabling` the appellate authority to dispose of the matter once and for all on merits, the petitioner may be directed to deposit 25% of the amount assessed, pending disposal of the appeal, subject to the result of the appeal.

¶37

Having heard the learned Counsel for both parties and in the light of the submissions made, particularly in the wake of the findings recorded by the Taxation Authority in paragraphs 16 to 17, I am of the view that the impugned order directing deposit of 35% in cash and requiring the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the rest of the amount of tax assessed with reference to Sec. 3(1), it is just and proper to dispose of the writ petition by modifying the impugned order making it clear that the Corporation shall deposit 20% of the tax assessed as per the order impugned before the Appellate Authority within a period of six weeks

¶38

¶39

from today. If 20% of the amount as directed above is deposited within 30 days, the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously.

¶40

All other contentions, including the contention whether the assessment has to be under Sec. 3 or it has to be under Sec. 10 are left open. It is also made clear that the appellate authority shall consider the entire matter on merit without in any manner being influenced

¶41

by the observations made in the course of this order.

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

mgn/-

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Varsha Shetty W/O Sri Jeevan Shetty Vs Sri Jeevan Shetty

A Suresh Shetty Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Ravichandra Vs the State Transport Authority

M/S Maris Spinners Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C K Kanumaiah S/O Pujar Challakeraiah Vs Sri Dasaiah S/O Thippaiah Dead by Lrs

M/S Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Regional Transport Officer