Disposed

S. Koteswar Goud, v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authori ty

Telangana HC5 Feb 2010WP/1929/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a tax demand notice, the Court observed that the vehicle was detained for plying without tax and permit. The Court noted the petitioner lacked statutory authority to ply in a neighbouring district without extra tax. Despite contesting on payment terms, the Court allowed instalment payment for seven days order. The petitioner directed that coercive steps be suspended

What did the court decide?

Suspended coercive recovery if the balance disputed tax is paid in two instalments, first within 15 days and the remaining balance within the next 15 days.

S. Koteswar Goud, Vs The Secretary, Regional… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶4

W.P.No.1929 of 2010

5-02-2010

BETWEEN;

S.Koteswar Goud

...Petitioner

vs.

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ranga Reddy and another

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶13

AND

¶14

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶15

W.P.Nos.1929 of 2010

¶16

ORAL ORDER: (Per RR,J)

¶17

The proceedings impugned in this writ petition is the demand notice issued by the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Rangareddy, East Zone, Uppal, dated 22-01-2010 whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay tax of Rs.57750/- {@ 2625/- per seat per quarter ending 31.12.2009}. On being intercepted and checked, while proceeding from Hyderabad to Medak, the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP29U 9095 (CC Bus) was detained under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that the vehicle was plying without issuance of “permit” and without payment of proper tax for the quarter ending 31.12.2009. The demand notice records that the petitioner’s permit was valid upto 25-12-2012 to ply the vehicle within

¶18

Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts as a “contract carriage” but was found plying from Hyderabad to Medak without payment of proper tax and permit and as such the petitioner was liable to pay the tax of Rs.2625/- per seat per quarter for the quarter ending 31.12.2009 for three(3) districts.

¶19

In the objections, filed to the show cause notice issued by the RTO, the petitioner disputed the fact of his having plied the vehicle between Hyderabad and Medak. Sri B.Chndrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner would, however, not question the finding recorded by the said authority that the vehicle was found in Medak. He would contend that, since Medak is a neighbouring district of Ranga Reddy, the petitioner was entitled to ply the vehicle in Medak district and to pay minimum tax but not tax at Rs.2625/- per seat per quarter. Learned counsel is, however, not in a position to show any Rule or conditions whereby the petitioner was permitted to ply the vehicle in a neighbouring district without payment of the tax as prescribed. We see no merit in the writ petition filed before this Court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would request this court to grant time to pay the balance disputed tax and submit that a sum of Rs.29,000/has already been paid. Whether or not the petitioner has paid tax of Rs.29,000/- is for the authority to examine. Since the petitioner is willing to pay the balance in two instalments, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax in case the petitioner makes payment of the balance disputed tax in two instalments, the first to be paid within fifteen (15) days from today constituting 50% of the disputed tax and the balance disputed tax within 15 days thereafter. In case the petitioner fails to pay the balance tax within the time stipulated hereinabove, the aforesaid order shall stand vacated and the respondents shall be at liberty to take all such steps as are available to them in law for recovery of the tax due.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.

¶22

______________

¶23

GODA RAGHURAM,J

¶24

__________________

¶25

RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶26

5^th FEBRUARY 2010. TSNR

S. Koteswar Goud, v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authori ty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Koteswar Goud, v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authori ty

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

Vennela Shopping and Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India, rep.by secretary, Government of India

M/s. Maheswara Getiti Marketing Private Limited Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Bodedla Techonologies and Marketing Private Ltd. Vs Union of India, rep.by Secretary

M/s. Cantronics Office Equipments Private Limited, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Addepalli Prathap Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Addepalli Pratap Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh