The petitioner sought to quash road tax demand notices on the ground of incorrect seating capacity. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellate authority's order correctly relied on manufacturer specifications.
The writ petition to quash the demand notices and the appellate order is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION No. 41901/2002 (T-MVT)
BETWEEN :
Sri. VEERAPPA SHANKARAPPA SAJANNAVAR, AGED 38 YEARS BANNIKUPPA, SHIRAHATTI TQ., GADAG DIST. … PETITIONER
(BY Sri. AMIT DESHPANDE, ADV.)
AND :
(BY Sri. A G MALDAR, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 21.02.2002 AND ETC.
: 2 :
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the demand notice dated 21.02.2002 – Annexure A, the order of Appellate Authority dated 28.09.2002 – Annexure B and another demand notice dated 24.10.2002 – Annexure C.
KA-26-1867 registered as Motor Cab with seating capacity of 5+1 based on a sale letter issued by the dealer. Accordingly permit was issued to the petitioner covering this vehicle for a seating capacity of 5+1. On this basis road tax was levied on the petitioner. Later the respondents discovered that in form No. 22 and form No. F issued by the manufacturer in respect of vehicle involved in this case it is stated that the seating capacity is 10+1. On the basis of form No.22 and form No. F issued by the manufacturer, the respondents issued
the impugned demand notice at Annexure A. Being aggrieved by
: 3 :
the impugned demand notice at Annexure A the petitioner filed an appeal and the same came to be dismissed as per Annexure B. Again the respondents issued another demand notice as per Annexure C. Aggrieved by these demand notices and the order of Appellate Authority the petitioner is before this Court.
“Every manufacturing company will manufacture the vehicles with certain motto and the company shall fix up the seating capacity according to the strength of chasis. According to the specification of the manufacturing company, the vehicle will be registered. All such vehicles should not necessarily
: 4 :
venture to bring any alteration or modification to suit convenience. This is impermissible in law.”
appearance within three weeks.
SD/JUDGE
Lrs.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court can quash demand notices issued for excess road tax on a vehicle.
Whether the impugned order of the appellate authority under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act needs interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H.S. Nagaraju Vs. Regional Transport OfficerFollowed¶25
H.S. Nagaraju Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Tumkur Region, 2000 (1) KLJ 339
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Veerappa Shankarappa Sannavar
Deputy Commissioner for Transports, Belgaum Division, Belgaum
Regional Transport Officer, Gadag
H.N.Nagamohan Das
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
