An intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition challenging tax levied on a tourist permit vehicle entering Karnataka for seven days. The High Court Bench held that the Single Judge correctly relied on a Division Bench judgment, and the appeal was 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.
W.A.No.1255/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT APPEAL NO. 1255 OF 2018 (T-MVT)
BETWEEN
MR. TIJU ABRAHAM KURUVILLA S/O MR. ABRAHAM KURUVILLA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT "MULAPONATHU HOUSE" KUMIAL, MARAMON POST, THIRUVELLA, KOZHENCHARY TALUK, PATHANAMITTA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B R SUNDARA RAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
W.A.No.1255/2018
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO. 29823/2016 DATED 13/03/2018 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1255/2018
J U D G M E N T
This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the W.P.No.29823/2016 filed by the appellant herein.
The brief facts of the case are:-
That the appellant is the owner of an All India Tourist Permit vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-27 B-9333 having authorization under Rule 83 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The said authorization was valid upto 14.02.2014. On gaining entry to the State of Karnataka on 31.10.2013, the 3rd respondent- A.R.T.O. issued a Check Report followed by an Endorsement dated 08.11.2013 directing the appellant to pay annual tax for the vehicle disregarding his explanation that the vehicle would be plied in the State of Karnataka only for seven days and therefore he should be permitted to pay quarterly tax and his vehicle be released.
The appellant, aggrieved thereby, filed an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1172/2013 which
W.A.No.1255/2018
came to be dismissed on 06.04.2016 resulting into the filing of W.P.No.29823/2016 (T-MVT). The learned Single Judge also declined relief to the appellant holding that the matter is no longer res integra inasmuch as in an identical case, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5472/2013 decided on 28.11.2013 between SRI S.P.SWAMINATHAN vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER & ANOTHER, has ruled against the contention of the appellant herein.
Having heard Shri B.R.S.Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Shri Venkatesh Dodderi, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing the official respondents, we do not find merits in this intra Court appeal.
Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in dismissing the writ petition by banking upon the aforesaid Division Bench judgment inasmuch as the facts of the cases were dissimilar. He contends that in the ruling cited above, the vehicle involved therein was intended to ply in the State of Karnataka regularly and therefore, the annual
W.A.No.1255/2018
tax was held to be leviable under the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, whereas in the instant case the vehicle was intended to be plied only for seven days; had these facts been adverted to, by the learned Single Judge, petitioner would have got the relief in the writ petition itself.
Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, per contra relies on the decision in S.P.Swaminathan (supra) and contends that the matter stands covered thereby.
The question framed in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment is at its paragraph 5, which reads as under:
“5. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the point that arise for our consideration is that:
“In the case of interstate permit, when the permit holder undertakes to pay the tax directly to the concerned State Transport Authority, at the time of entry in its jurisdiction, the said payment of tax could be made as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act that is, quarterly or half yearly”.
After considering the provisions of Section 88 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 83 of the Central Motor
W.A.No.1255/2018
Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, the Division Bench at paragraph 7 states:
“7. ……. Therefore the tax payable before issue of authorization depends upon the period for which authorization is sought. In other words, whatever is the period, one year being the maximum, the tax payable is for the period of authorization. If the permit holder does not pay tax before issue of authorization and undertakes to pay tax directly to the concerned State Transport Authority at the time of entry in its jurisdiction, the tax payable before issue of authorization shall be paid before the vehicle enters the State. Therefore, this rule provides for payment of tax under the Act in lumpsum depending upon the period of authorization. ……..”
Hence, there is force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate since the Tourist Permit for plying the vehicle in the State of Karnataka is not obtained in advance. On the other hand, the appellant had chosen, of his own volition, to obtain the permit under Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and the authorization to ply his vehicle admittedly is for a period of one year. Thus, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the
W.A.No.1255/2018
case of the appellant and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be faltered.
The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that irrespective of whether the tax is payable for seven days or for the whole year, such a decision has to be taken only by the State Transport Authorities in the light of Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 read with Part-B of the Schedule since the vehicle in question is registered in a State other than the State of Karnataka and the same is intended to be plied in this State for a period less than seven days. We are afraid, such a contention appears to have not been urged before the learned Single Judge and therefore we decline to entertain the same.
The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in relying on a division bench judgment with a similar case but different facts regarding the duration of vehicle plying.
Whether the determination of tax applicability for a vehicle intending to ply for a period less than seven days lies with the State Transport Authorities under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehi
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SRI S.P.SWAMINATHAN vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER & ANOTHERRelied on¶31
W.P.No.5472/2013
5 provisions across 4 enactments
MR. TIJU ABRAHAM KURUVILLA
THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS AND OTHERS
DINESH MAHESHWARI
KRISHNA S. DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
