Dismissed

The Sharada Education Society v. the Deputy Commissioner for

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023WP/105118/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the imposition of double tax and penalty on a school bus operator for unauthorized passenger carriage. Upholding the authority's finding based on compiled reports, the Court ruled Section 8(b) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, authorized the penalty.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dismissing the appeal and imposing tax and penalty were upheld; writ petition dismissed.

The Sharada Education Society Vs the Deputy… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429 WP No. 105118 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 105118 OF 2014 (T-MVT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE SHARADA EDUCATION SOCIETY, VIDYANAGAR, GANGAVATHI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL, R/BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI T. V. SATYANARAYANA S/O. GOPAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY BELGAUM DIVISION BELGAUM, TQ & DIST: BELGAUM.

¶14

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2023.12.14 11:58:05 +0530

¶15

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, R.T.O OFFICE, GADAG, TQ & DIST: GADAG, REP. BY R.T.O, GADAG.

¶16

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE R.T.O OFFICE, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL, REP. BY R.T.O KOPPAL.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 27.08.2013, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, BEARING NO. PRA.SA.A.KA/DSA/2013-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ORDER DTD 19.03.2014, PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.DCT/BGM/TAX/02/2013-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429 WP No. 105118 of 2014

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶24

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶25

The petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.03.2014 in Appeal No.DCT/BGM/TAX/02/2013-14 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Belgaum Division, Belgaum. In terms of the said order, the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed and the order imposing tax and penalty to the tune of Rs.87,850/- on the petitioner on the premise that the school bus is used in contravention of the permit is upheld.

¶26

Certain other facts which can be noticed from the pleadings and the documents can be summarized as under:

¶27

On 31.07.2009 the bus owned by the petitionerinstitution was intercepted in Gajendraghad. Admittedly, the owner had the permit to ply the bus within Koppal District to carry the students from the school managed by the petitionerinstitution. A report was generated on 31.07.2009 intimating that the bus was carrying 55 passengers which was not allowed in terms of the permit and the bus was plying beyond the

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429 WP No. 105118 of 2014

¶29

permitted route. The report is signed by the driver of the bus. The petitioner has paid the penalty of Rs.5,300/- payable for not possessing requisite documents at the time of interception. In the year 2013, the authority issued a demand notice dated 03.08.2013 demanding Rs.5,300/as penalty for not possessing documents and Rs.87,850/- as the tax payable under Section 8(b) of The Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957.

¶30

Petitioner claims to have responded to the said notice on the premise that the vehicle was not used for carrying the passengers as alleged. However, the petitioner admitted that necessary documents were not available in the vehicle when the vehicle was intercepted. The petitioner took a defense that the vehicle was plying towards Hubballi to carry out repair and under the relevant provision of law, such movement of the vehicle is allowed and as such, there is no need to pay the tax. The allegation that the bus was carrying 55 passengers unauthorisedly is disputed.

¶31

The authority demanded documents from the petitioner to substantiate the contention that the vehicle was

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429 WP No. 105118 of 2014

¶33

plying to Hubballi for repairs. To the said notice, there was no response from the petitioner. Since, no documents, except resolution of the institution is produced to show that the vehicle was plying to Hubballi for setting the vehicle repaired, the authority demanded tax of Rs.87,850/- by invoking Section 8(b) of The Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957.

¶34

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has dismissed the appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no proof to hold that the petitioner’s vehicle was carrying 55 passengers on 31.07.2009. It is the contention of the petitioner that the vehicle was proceeding towards Hubballi for the purpose of repairs and there were no passengers in the bus. He would contend that imposition of tax under Section 8(b) of The Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 is bad in law.

¶36

This Court has perused the records.

¶37

It is relevant to note that on 31.07.2009, a report

¶38

was generated alleging that the vehicle was intercepted and 55 passengers were traveling in the said vehicle. The documents

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429 WP No. 105118 of 2014

¶40

would reveal that the document is signed by the driver of the bus. The fact that the vehicle was intercepted, a report was generated and the driver signed the report are not in dispute. In addition to that, the defense that the vehicle was plying to Hubballi for repairs is not established as no particulars are produced for having taken the vehicle to service station at Hubballi or having got the vehicle serviced/repaired at Hubballi or the documents relating to payment of service charges. Though, the petitioner has produced the resolution to show that the management has passed the resolution to have the vehicle repaired in Hubballi, the actual proof of repair is not forth coming. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the authority has established that the vehicle was carrying 55 passengers on 31.07.2009. Admittedly, there was no permit to ply the vehicle in Gajendragad where the vehicle was intercepted and also there was no permit to carry 55 passengers.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge is that there is no power under the Act to impose double the tax as a penalty and he would rely upon the judgment of this Court

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429 WP No. 105118 of 2014

¶43

in the case of JAYANNA vs ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER reported in LAWS(KAR) 1988 1 28.

¶44

The said judgment was decided interpreting the law that was prevailing in 1984. Section 8(b) of The Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 was amended in the year 1989. Section 8(b) reads as under:

¶45

8-B. Further additional Tax for misuse of motor

¶46

vehicle.- When any motor vehicle in respect of which tax has been paid is misused or used not in accordance with the purpose for which the vehicle is registered or the permit is granted or is used in such manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable, the registered owner or person who is in possession or control of such vehicle, shall for such misuse other than the one under sub-section (4) of Section 3, pay a further additional tax of a sum of which is equal to double the difference between the tax already paid and the tax which is payable in respect of such vehicle for the period for which the higher rate of tax is payable in respect of such vehicle for the period for which the higher rate of tax is payable in consequence of its being misused or used not in accordance with the purpose for which the vehicle is registered or the permit is granted.

¶47

On reading of Section 8(b), it is apparent that the authority has the power to impose double the tax as a penalty for violation. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14429 WP No. 105118 of 2014

¶50

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

BRN

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41