Disposed

St. Alysius School, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Nov 2011WP/10594/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order addressed two writ petitions filed by unaided educational institutions challenging the imposition of enhanced motor vehicle tax for a specific interregnum period. The court relied on a prior Division Bench decision to hold that tax changes are prospective and cannot affect liabilities already accrued at the beginning of a quarter. Consequently, petitioners were directed to pay th

What did the court decide?

A declaration was made that petitioners pay unladen weight tax for the quarter ending 31.12.2002, enhanced tax for 01.01.2003 to 31.03.2003, and unladen weight tax thereafter. Respondents directed to

St. Alysius School, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.10594 AND 13099 OF 2004

¶3

Dated:14.11.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

St.Aloysius School, Ajjamur Garuvu, Akiveedu, West Godavari District, Represented by its Correspondent Sister T.M.Philo, D/o.Mr.Mathews, Aged 44 years, R/o.Ajjamur Garuvu, Akiveedu, West Godavari District .. Petitioner

¶6

And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION Nos.10594 AND 13099 OF 2004

¶10

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao)

¶11

As the issue involved in these two writ petitions is common, it is expedient to dispose of the same by a common order.

¶12

The sole petitioner in the first writ petition and petitioners numbering thirty three (33) in the other one are unaided educational institutions. They provide vehicles like buses for transporting the students and the staff to and

¶13

fro from the educational institutions. At the relevant time, as per Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (the Act) and the applicable notification, their vehicles were treated as omni-buses and the tax was laid based on unladen weight. There is no dispute that the petitioners regularly paid the quarterly tax. There is also no dispute that they also paid quarterly tax for the Q.E. 31.12.2002 based on the unladen weight.

¶14

The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued notification under Section 3 of the Act substituting the rates of quarterly tax for items 4(i)(b)(c), 5 and 7. The vehicles of the petitioners fall under Item No.7 of the notification in G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 27.04.1993, which was amended by G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 27.11.2002. As per this notification, the petitioners are required to pay the quarterly tax at Rs.189/- per seat per quarter. It appears, all the educational institutions requested the Government to restore the old rate of tax based on unladen weight of the buses and other vehicles. In

¶15

response thereto, the Government issued notification vide G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2003 restoring status quo ante, as a result of which, the educational institution buses are required to pay the quarterly tax based only on unladen weight.

¶16

Indisputably, the notification in G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 27.11.2002, stood amended by G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2003. What would be the rate of tax during the interregnum period from 27.11.2002 to 31.01.2003 ? It appears, the Government issued Memo No.709/Tr.II/03-02,

¶17

dated 18.05.2003 declining to give retrospective effect to the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.15. Therefore, the Licencing Authority, Bheemavaram, advised the petitioner in W.P.No.10594 of 2004 to pay the difference of M.V. tax for November and December, 2002 and January, 2003 for the interregnum period. It appears, similar demands were also made on the other educational institutions. This is the cause of action for filing these two writ petitions seeking declaration in not giving retrospective effect to G.O.Ms.No.15, is illegal and arbitrary and the demand raised for the interregnum period is illegal.

¶18

We have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader for Transport, Roads and Buildings Department.

¶19

The short issue for consideration is whether the petitioners are required to pay the enhanced rate of tax for the period from 27.11.2002 to 31.01.2003.

¶20

The question is no more res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in Janatha Travel Agency v Government of Andhra Prades h^[1] considered similar question in the light of Section 4 of the Act which mandates the payment of advance motor vehicles tax before the beginning of the quarter, half yearly or annually. Considering this aspect, it was held as under.

¶21

….. According to Section 4 of the Taxation Act, the tax

¶22

under the Act shall be paid in advance and in the manner specified in Section 11 either quarterly, half yearly or annually at the choice of the registered owner. Section 11 prescribes the manner of payment of tax. The notification issued under G.O.Ms.No.106 dated 01.07.1995, as already been noticed, prescribes quarterly tax of Rs.12,000/- from omni buses answering the description in the notification. We are of the view that the impugned notification cancelling the earlier notification is obviously and indisputably prospective in nature. It does not affect the rights already accrued or liabilities already incurred in the matter of payment of tax. The right and liability to pay the tax at the rate specified in G.O.Ms.No.106 became crystallized even at the beginning of the quarter i.e., 01.06.2000. The cancellation thereof during or after the commencement of the quarter does not have the effect of taking away the right or liability to pay the tax at the rate in force at the beginning of the quarter. We therefore direct that the impugned notification shall not be given effect till the expiry of the quarter ending on 30.06.2000. …..

¶23

(emphasis supplied)

¶24

Indisputably, the petitioners paid the motor vehicle tax based on unladen weight for the Q.E. 31.12.2002. Applying the ratio of Janatha Travels, even if the Government issued amendment vide G.O.No.214, dated 27.11.2002, it has to be given effect only after the expiry of the Q.E. 31.12.2002. As on 01.01.2003, the liability of the petitioners to pay enhanced motor vehicle tax would arise. Such tax shall have to be at the rate specified in G.O.Ms.No.214 i.e. Rs.189/- per seat for the entire Q.E. 31.03.2003. The subsequent amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.15 whereby and whereunder the Government restored status quo ante insofar as educational institution buses is concerned, would be applicable for the quarter beginning from 01.04.2003 and quarter ending 30.06.2003. The petitioners however are liable to pay the motor vehicle tax as per G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 27.11.2004, which was in force as on 01.01.2003. The counsel for the petitioners Sri T.Venkataramana, however, contends that G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2003, would have to be given effect from 01.01.2003

¶25

when it was notified and the petitioners cannot be made liable to pay tax as per G.O.Ms.No.214 for the entire Q.E. 31.03.2003. In view of ratio in Janatha Travels which squarely applies to the facts on hand, we cannot agree with the submission.

¶26

In the result, for the above reasons, these writ petitions shall stand deposed of declaring that for the quarter ending 31.12.2002, the petitioners are liable to pay motor vehicle tax based on unladen weight. However, for the period from 01.01.2003 to 31.03.2003, they will be liable to pay the tax as per G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 27.11.2002, and thereafter they will be liable to pay tax for their buses based on the unladen weight as was the position before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.214.

¶27

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of and respondents shall issue demand as per the declaration hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J)

¶29

_____________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 14.11.2011 KH

¶30

[1] 2000 (5) ALD 250

St. Alysius School, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St. Alysius School, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Sasikar Vs The Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary

M/s. Sunny Enterprises, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sunny Enterprises

B. Ramanaiah Constructions Engineers and Contractors Vs The Managing Director A.P. Road Development

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] Vs M/S Sri Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited

M/s.Continental Engineering Coporation ,9th floor Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its