This court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash an illegal tax demand notice of Rs.18,370 against a bus owner. Relying on a Larger Bench decision regarding stage carriage, the court set aside the demand notice.
The impugned demand notice was set aside and the writ petition disposed of.
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.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.10502 of 2006
Date: 17.03.2016
Between:
T.Trimurthulu S/o Sri Narasimha Rao, Aged 32 years, Bus Owner, D.No.1447, Aryapeta, Near MRO Office, Yelamanchili, Yelamanchili Mandal, West Godavari Dist.
….. Petitioner
and The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, West Godavari District at Eluru and another.
…..Respondents
The Court made the following: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.10502 of 2006
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)
This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:
“To issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the records from the 1st respondent in R.No.7109/A1/2006, dated 09.05.2006 in respect of the Bus CNX6607 demanding a sum of Rs.18,370/- as difference of tax for the quarter ending 31.03.2006 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.”
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the demand notice dated 09.05.2006 is ex facie illegal. Petitioner is not liable to pay extra/additional tax as the vehicle is not used as contract carriage and continued to be used as stage carriage only and vehicle check was conducted when the vehicle was stopped at the permitted place as per permit and, therefore, petitioner is not liable to pay any additional/extra tax as sought to be levied. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of L.Royal Reddy and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others[1] .
3. Confronted by the said submission, learned Government Pleader also fairly submits that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered by the aforesaid decision. The said submission is accepted.
4. Having regard to the same, the demand notice impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
___________________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 17.03.2016 kkm
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.10502 of 2006
Date:17.03.2016 kkm
[1] 2004 (2) ALD 225 (LB)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the tax demand notice issued to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law.
Whether the writ petition should be allowed to quash the tax notice based on the precedent established in L.Royal Reddy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L.Royal Reddy and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and othersApplied¶15
T.Trimurthulu
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, West Godavari District
Dilip B Bhosale
P Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
