The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the seizure of a car and the imposition of life-time tax and compounding fees due to alleged violations of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 and A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Writ petition disposed of; direction given for a release of vehicle under A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.12113 OF 2012
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao)
The petitioner’s car bearing No.CG 04 DL 3000 (LMV) was registered in the state of Chattisgarh, was seized by the 5th Respondent on 17.3.2012 for the following alleged contraventions; i) the vehicle registered in Chattisgarh is plying in the state of Andhra Pradesh for 40 days and is kept in Miyapur and hence, the vehicle attracts A.P.Life Time Tax; ii) it had no insurance certificate; iii) it has no valid Pollution Under Control Certificate, and iv) Original Registration Certificate was not produced. The petitioner submitted a representation on 18.4.2012 to the third respondent namely the Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, Sangareddy, Medak, to consider the release of the vehicle, in vain. On 21.4.2012, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Ranga Reddy District (4th respondent herein) issued a show cause notice directing to show causes as to why life tax under Section 4 of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 and compounding fee under Section 200 of the A.P.Motor Vehicles, 1988 should not be collected. Assailing the seizure as well as the show cause notice, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The case of the petitioner is that he is permanent resident of Raipur, Chattisgarh. His wife is from Hyderabad. In January, 2012, his wife came to Hyderabad for delivery. For her use, the subject car was brought from Chattisgarh and when it was going to medical shop on 17.3.2012, it was seized. The petitioner contended that the vehicle is kept only for 40 days and there is no intention to
permanently keep or use the vehicle in the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, demand of life time tax is illegal and unauthorized.
Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the car was brought only in connection with child birth, when his wife came to Hyderabad in the advanced stage of pregnancy, therefore, it cannot be construed that the petitioner has brought the vehicle and ‘kept or kept for use’ in the State of Andhra Pradesh. According to him, Sections 3(i) and 4 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 are not attracted. These contentions are refuted by the Government Pleader for Transport. He would submit that when the show cause notice is issued to the petitioner, the petitioner can approach the 4th respondent for release of the vehicle under Rule 448-B of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
It is well settled that when a show cause notice is issued, if any person aggrieved by such show cause notice, can initially approach the authority who issued such notice and seek redressal. Further in many cases, this Court passed orders directing the competent authority to consider the request of the owner of the vehicle to release, pending further investigation/enquiry with reference to the non-payment/under payment of motor vehicle tax. Therefore, we cannot accede to the request of the counsel for the petitioner to direct the 4th respondent to release the vehicle on condition and imposing terms.
In the result, with the above reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders immediately for release of the vehicle as and when the petitioner approaches the 4th respondent by way of an application for release of the vehicle and impose any condition as deem fit and proper. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J) 26th April, 2012. Issue certified copy by 27.04.2012 B/o kvs
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
Writ Petition No.12113 of 2012 Date: 26.04.2012 Dinesh Agarwal. … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat Buildings and five others. …Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.12113 OF 2012
26th April, 2012
KVS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the imposition of life time tax under Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 is illegal when the vehicle was brought temporarily for childbirth purposes.
Whether the petitioner can be directed to release the seized vehicle without complying with the show cause notice under Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dinesh Agarwal
The Government of Andhra Pradesh through Secretary, Transport Department
V.V.S. Rao
G. Krishna Mohan Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
