Allowed

K.S.R.T.C.Bangalore Central Division, rep.by Divisional v. Licensing Officer, and R.T.O., Chittoor

Telangana HC15 Jul 2008WP/15091/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a tax demand notice, the High Court allowed the petition setting aside the notice but remanded the matter to the respondent to pass appropriate orders after affording the petitioner a personal hearing and opportunity to explain, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed setting aside the impugned notice, but the matter was remanded to the respondent to pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing and deposit

K.S.R.T.C.Bangalore Central Division, rep.by… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 15091 of 2008

¶6

Between:

¶7

K.S.R.T.C.Bangalore Central Division, rep.by Divisional Controller, Bangalore,Karnataka State

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Licensing Officer, & R.T.O., Chittoor

¶11

.....RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the concerned records relating to the demand notice of the respondent dated 9.1.2008 in R.No.42639/A2/2007 demanding a sum of Rs.2,02,125/- towards tax in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KA.01/F.7755 and quash the same and pass

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAJAGOPALA CHARY

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent.: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO : 15091 of 2008

¶18

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the demand notice dated 9.1.2008 issued by the respondent demanding a sum of Rs.2,02,125/- towards tax in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KA.01/F.7755.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle, which was seized, is a spare vehicle that is being used in the place of a break down vehicle and that the operation of the spare vehicle is covered by Inter-State agreement entered into by the State of A.P. and Karnataka and therefore, the tax, which is applicable to the spare vehicle alone can be collected and the demand of tax of Rs.3,675/- per seat and per quarter is illegal.. On 24.12.2007, the petitioner submitted its representation. But, the respondent without considering the representation and without giving any notice, issued the impugned notice. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶21

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that an opportunity may be afforded to the petitioner to submit his explanation raising all the pleas that were raised in the present writ petition.

¶23

While opposing the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader contended that even though sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, it has not chosen to submit its explanation. Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

In view of the rival contentions and the nature of the proceedings in question and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that an opportunity has to be afforded before passing any order, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it just and proper

¶25

to remand the matter for passing appropriate orders after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, subject to the certain conditions.

¶26

Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the respondent for passing appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and submitting its explanation raising all the contentions that were raised in this writ petition, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. It is needless to observe that on compliance of the above stipulated conditions only, the matter shall be reheard and disposed of, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶27

Subject to above direction, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned notice. No order as to costs.

¶28

________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari

¶29

___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 15^th July, 2008 Nn/gurc.

¶30

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶31

WRIT PETITION No:15091 OF 2008

¶32

(Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)

¶33

15/07/2008

K.S.R.T.C.Bangalore Central Division, rep.by Divisional v. Licensing Officer, and R.T.O., Chittoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.R.T.C.Bangalore Central Division, rep.by Divisional v. Licensing Officer, and R.T.O., Chittoor

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

Azam Jahi Mills.a.U.N.T.Corp.Ltd. Vs the Asst.Commissioner of LABOUR.AND2 Other

The Secretary to Govt., Vs a.Chandresekhar Reddy

Secretary , Education Dept, Vs K.Varaha Narasimhulu

M/s. Andhra Fules Private Limited, 6-3-1110, 11 and 12, Vs The Commiercial Tax Officer

M/s.Ram Das ANDCompany,No.8,Krishnanagar colony Vs The Commercial TAx officer,Marredpally Circle

M/s. Dlf Laing O Rourke (India) Ltd., Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct)