Dismissed

Sri Harish Kumar Saraiya v. The Regional Transport Officer

Telangana HC7 Nov 2012WP/7308/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a demand notice for additional motor vehicles tax. The petitioner argued that failure to obtain a counter-signature and initial collection at a lower rate precluded collecting the correct two-district tax rate. The court held the liability remains absolute despite these factors.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, holding the petitioner liable to pay the difference in tax of Rs.1,32,960/-

Sri Harish Kumar Saraiya Vs The Regional Transport… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7308 of 2010

¶3

Dated: 07.11.2012

¶4

Between: Sri Harish Kumar Saraiya, S/o.K. Saraiya, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.19, Suman Colony, Maredpally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Authority, East Zone, Ranga Reddy District at Uppal.

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.7308 of 2010

¶11

ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram):

¶12

Heard Sri B. Siva Rama Krishnaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport.

¶13

The demand notice issued in Memo bearing reference No.1734010A1/RRE/09, dated 22.03.2010, by the respondent is challenged in the writ petition on creative but untenable grounds.

¶14

The petitioner is the owner of the contract carriage vehicle bearing Registration No.AP/29 U – 0538. The petitioner applied for a contract carriage permit for plying the vehicle in Ranga Reddy and Hyderabad Districts and remitted tax at the rate of Rs.892.50 paise per seat per quarter (PSPQ), for the quarter ending 30.09.2009 and was granted permit No.AP0029/278/PC/2008. The permit is valid upto 28.03.2013. The petitioner could not however obtain the counter signature by the Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad and therefore claims to have factually operated the vehicle only in Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

The respondent issued a show cause notice dated 27.10.2009 intimating the petitioner that erroneously tax was collected only at the rate of Rs.892.50 paise PSPQ instead of at the rate of Rs.1,207.50 paise, which is the appropriate rate of tax to be collected for a contract carriage permit issued for two districts as per G.O.Ms.No.68, dated

¶16

13.04.2006 and called upon the petitioner to remit Rs.1,32,960/towards the difference in tax, between what was collected and what was liable to be collected. In response, the petitioner submitted an explanation contending only that the petitioner could not obtain counter signature from the Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad, as required under Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore he plied the vehicle only in Ranga Reddy District and for this reason he is not liable to pay the difference in tax as proposed in the show cause notice dated 27.10.2009.

¶17

By the impugned order dated 22.03.2010, the respondent rejected the petitioner’s objections and directed payment of Rs.1,32,960/-. This demand is challenged in this writ petition.

¶18

It is the equivocally admitted factual scenario that the liability to motor vehicles tax in respect of a permit issued for plying a contract carriage in two districts as per the relevant tariff for the period the permit was issued is Rs.1,207.50 paise PSPQ. It is also not contested that the demand for the difference of tax liability as set out in the show cause notice dated 27.10.2009 and culminating in the impugned order dated 22.03.2010 is not barred by limitation or by estoppel or waiver. It is indisputable that the liability to tax arises consequent on the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 and the statutory tariff notification issued thereunder.

¶19

The singular ground on which the impugned order is impeached is that the respondent himself having collected tax at the rate of Rs.892.50 paise PSPQ at the time of issue of the permit was disabled from initiating a process for collection of the appropriate rate of tax i.e., of Rs.1,207.50 paise PSPQ. The relief sought and the pleadings apart, what is essentially contended is that the initial collection of the tax at the lower rate of Rs.892.50 paise PSPQ estops the respondent from collecting the appropriate and legislatively

¶20

ordained tax of Rs.1,207.50 paise PSPQ and this being the only legal formulation of the submission and the same being misconceived and is accordingly rejected.

¶21

The fact that the petitioner failed to obtain the counter signature from the Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad does not immunize the petitioner from the liability to motor vehicles tax relevant to the permit issued for the two districts i.e., of Rs.1,207.50 paise PSPQ. Since under the provisions of the Act, tax is payable in advance at the time of issue of permit and the eventuality of the failure of the petitioner to obtain a counter signature would not have the legal consequence of any remission in the quantum of tax, the petitioners liability cannot be avoided.

¶22

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however no costs.

¶23

JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶24

Date: 07.11.2012

¶25

JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶26

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.7308 of 2010 (order of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶29

Date: 07.11.2012

¶30

Sri Harish Kumar Saraiya v. The Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Harish Kumar Saraiya 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

M/s. Elite Engineers, a partnership firm Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Commission

Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Agricultural Market Committee

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Agricultural Market Committee

B. Sivaprasad Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Arivazhagan Vs The Motor Vehicle Inspector,Flying Squad,Nellore

G.N.Naidu Vs The Jt Commisioner of Income Tax