Disposed

Syed Faraaz Mohiuddin v. the Regional Transport Officer

Karnataka HC2 Jan 2024WP/49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging motor vehicle tax demand notices despite alleged payment of up-to-date taxes. Court disposed of the petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit reply and documents before the respondent, who was directed to hear him and pass orders in accordance with law, without coercive steps till then.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit reply to demand notices; respondent to hear petitioner and pass orders per law; no coercive steps till then.

Syed Faraaz Mohiuddin Vs the Regional Transport… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:138 WP No. 49 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.49 OF 2024 (T- MVT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SYED FARAAZ MOHIUDDIN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS THE HEAD MASTER THE DEENS ACADEMY DEENS GARDEN NO.64-1, 65-2, ECC ROAD WHITEFIELD BENGALURU-560 066.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B R SUNDARA RAJA GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER AND THE TAXATION AUTHORITY ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU-560 076.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT MARKED UNDER ANNEXURE B TO B8 IN RESPECT OF VEHICLES BEARING NO. RTO/E-CITY/TRANSPORT/2023-24 KA51-AA-2740, KA51-2458, KA51AA-2459, KA51-AA 2460, KA-51-AA 2461, KA 51-AA-2480, KA-51-AA 2481, KA51-AA-2482 AND KA51-AA-2483 DTD 24.11.2023 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:138 WP No. 49 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Demand Notice at Annexures – B to B8 dated 24.11.2023 in respect of the subject vehicles and for other reliefs.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶21

HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶22

The material on record discloses that it is the grievance of the petitioner that despite having paid up-to-date taxes in respect of the subject vehicles as evidenced by Annexures – A to A8, the respondent has issued impugned Demand Notices calling upon the petitioner to pay taxes, which he is not liable to pay and consequently, the impugned Demand Notices being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law deserve to be quashed.

¶23

Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent submits that if petitioner submits their reply to the Demand Notices at Annexures – B to B8, the respondent shall consider the same by providing an opportunity to the petitioner and hear him and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:138 WP No. 49 of 2024

¶26

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

¶27

submission made by both sides, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to submit reply along with documents to the Demand Notices at Annexures – B to B8 by appearing before the respondent on 22.01.2024 at 03.00 P.M.

¶28

Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit

¶29

pleadings, documents, etc., before the respondent on 22.01.2024. Upon petitioner submitting his pleadings, documents as stated supra, the respondent shall consider the same and provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear him and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. It is further directed that till respondent passes appropriate orders in accordance with law as stated supra, the respondent shall not initiate any precipitative / coercive steps / action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned Demand Notices at Annexures – B to B8.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:138 WP No. 49 of 2024

¶32

Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands

disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Syed Faraaz Mohiuddin v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Faraaz Mohiuddin v. the 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

Smt Hanumamma Vs Sri T Mahesh Kumara

Smt. Rajamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Nanjunda Vs the Head Master

Sri. Vasudev H K, Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Sri. Shankar C Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Lokesh G.N. Vs the State of Karnataka