Madras High Court
Sri G.R.Govindarajulu & Sons vs The Regional Transport Officer [South on 7 September, 2016
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.09.2016 C O R A M THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM WP.No.23924/2005 & WPMP.No.26078/2005 Sri G.R.Govindarajulu & Sons Charities, Peelamedu Coimbatore 641 004. .. Petitioner Versus The Regional Transport Officer [South] Coimbatore. .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore South, in R.No.63315/D1/2004 dated 07.06.2005, quash the same. For Petitioner ... No appearance For Respondent ... Mrs.M.F.Rani Selvam, AGP ORDER
Heard Mrs.M.F.Rani Selvam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
2 The petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the respondent dated 07.06.2005. By the said order, the respondent has demanded payment of tax of Rs.1,85,670/- in respect of three buses which is owned by the petitioner stating that the vehicles are not used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the Educational Institution and they are not Educational Institution Buses [EIBs]. Though the respondent has been served and they have entered appearance through counsel, no counter affidavit has been filed. Though this Court would be well justified in quashing the impugned proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was granted to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to examine the merits of the matter considering the peculiar facts and circumstances.
3 The reason behind issuing the impugned proceedings stating that the petitioner's buses are not EIBs is on the sole ground that the owner of the buses is the petitioner which is a Charitable Trust. Section 2[11] of the Motor Vehicles Act, defines an Educational Institution bus to mean an omnibus, which is owned by a College, School or other Educational Institution and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the Educational Institution in connection with any of its activities. Thus, to satisfy the definition, what would be relevant is that the bus should be owned by a College or School or other Educational Institution. Secondly, it is to be used solely for the purpose of transporting the staff or the students of the Educational Institution in connection with any of its activities. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the buses and it is sought to be penalised by claiming higher rate of tax on the ground that it is not an Educational Institution. However, this finding rendered by the respondent is on a thorough misconception of the facts. The petitioner is a Charitable Trust and its main object is to open, establish, construct, maintain, run, develop, improve etc., of Elementary and Secondary Schools and Colleges for imparting secular education ; Colleges and Schools for studying technical and technological subjects ; Schools and Colleges and other institutions for the study of medicine and surgery ; Schools and Colleges and institutions of other forms etc., for study of agriculture ; horticulture etc. 4 From the above objects, which are few of the objects of the Trust as mentioned in their Memorandum, it is evidently clear that the petitioner Trust is an Educational Trust. Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges [Regulation] Act and the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools [Regulation] Act, an educational agency has been recognised as a body which establishes and administers an institution. Therefore, the respondent cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner is an educational agency. One more issue which is very relevant is that the transport permit in respect of all the three buses for which higher rate of tax has been demanded with retrospective effect, stands in the name of the respective Educational Institution. However, this vital fact has been lost sight of by the respondent while issuing the impugned demand. That apart, the impugned demand has been issued in the year 2005 with retrospective effect from the year 1998 to 2002 and there is nothing placed on record by the respondent to show as to under what authority of law, they have issued such a demand with a retrospective effect. Hence, for all the above reasons, it is evidently clear that the impugned order is an outcome of total non-application of mind.
5 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 07.06.2005 in R.No.63315/D1/2004 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.09.2016 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No AP To The Regional Transport Officer [South] Coimbatore.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J., AP WP.No.23924/2005 07.09.2016