Karnataka High Court
Sri.S.Krishnananda Chatra vs The Regional Transport Officer on 9 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39835
WP No. 25920 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.25920 OF 2025 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI S. KRISHNANANDA CHATRA
S/O LATE GOVINDA CHAITRA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
M/S. DURGAMBA MOTORS,
NO.66, HANGALUR, KUNDAPURA,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576217
AND ALSO PLACE OF BUSINESS AT
CHIKKABAJANE MANDIR STREET
SARJAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 125. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.V. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
CHANDAPURA (BANGALORE CITY)-562186.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER
Location: HIGH FOR TRANSPORT BANGALORE (CITY)
COURT OF BENGALURU, TTMC BUILDING,
KARNATAKA
SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FOLLOWING ENDORSEMENTS ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT:
ENDORSEMENT DATED 17-07-2025 BEARING
NUMBER:PRA.SA.AA/CHANDAPURA/S.R/2025-2026 (ANNEXURE-C);
ENDORSEMENT 17-07-2025 DATED BEARING
NUMBER:PRA.SA.AA/CHANDAPURA/S.R/2025-2026 (ANNEXURE-D)
AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39835
WP No. 25920 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is a partner of a registered Transport Partnership firm engaged in operating stage carriage service under valid permit issued by the Transport Authority. The petitioner also owns buses in his individual capacity, and two such buses are holding separate permits. Owing to the mechanical defects and necessity for proper maintenance and repairs to ensure safe and efficient operation, the petitioner withdrew the said buses from service and garage. Since the vehicles were not in use on the public road during the relevant period, the petitioner submitted an application under Form No.30 under Section 16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'KMVT Act' for short) read with Rule 34-A of the KMVT Rules, seeking exemption from payment of motor vehicles' tax for the period of non- use.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:39835 WP No. 25920 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. Respondent No.1-Regional Transport Officer returned the applications, on the ground that the petitioner was required to first clear certain departmental charges and pending check reports relating to the said vehicles and to pay the prescribed fee, after which only the application for exemption would be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned endorsement are arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the scheme of KMVT Act and Rules. Once an application is submitted in the prescribed form with supporting documents, evidencing non-use of the vehicle, the authority is bound to consider it on merits. There is no provision empowering the authority to return or withhold the application merely because of departmental proceedings are pending.
3. Learned counsel for both sides fairly submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Managing -4- NC: 2025:KHC:39835 WP No. 25920 of 2025 HC-KAR Partner Durgamba Motors Vs. Regional Transport Officer1 (Durgamba Motors), wherein it has held that when the statute provides for filing of an application for exemption in a prescribed form and manner, the authority cannot return such an application on the extraneous ground that an enquiry or departmental action is pending.
4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and perused the material on record.
5. It is evident that Section 16 of the KMVT Act read with Rule 34-A of the KMVT Rules provides for filing an application for exemption from payment of tax when a vehicle is not used. There is no provision in the KMVT Act and the Rules permitting the authority to reject or such withhold such an application on account of any pending departmental charges. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Durgamba Motors stated supra has categorically held that the pendency of any enquiry cannot 1 W.P.No.25896/2025 D.D 17.09.2025 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:39835 WP No. 25920 of 2025 HC-KAR be employed as a condition to deny exemption under Section 16 of the KMVT Act particularly in view of the Government notification dated 10.09.2007, which lays down the detailed procedure and conditions for claiming exemption for non-use of vehicles. Notification dated 10.09.2007 reads as under:
"No. TRD 45 SAEPA 2007, Bangalore, dated 6th September, 2007 Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary No.1699, dated 10-9-2007 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1957), and in supersession of Notification No.HTD 170 ΤΜΑ 2003, dated 6-8-2003, published in the Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary No.1011, dated 27-8-2003 and all other notification issued on the subject. The Government of Karnataka, being of opinion that it is necessary in public interest so to do, hereby exempts motor vehicles registered in the State of Karnataka and not used on roads, from the payment of tax under the said Act for a period of one quarter, half year or year, as the case may be during which -6- NC: 2025:KHC:39835 WP No. 25920 of 2025 HC-KAR such vehicles are not used on roads, subject to the following conditions, namely.-
Emphasis supplied
6. Therefore, the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.1 is unsustainable in law and needs to be quashed. However the respondents are at liberty to proceed independently in respect of any departmental actions against the vehicles, but such proceedings shall not be a ground for refusing for considering the application for exemption and accordingly this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsements dated 17.07.2025 at Annexures-C and D issued by respondent No.1 are quashed.
iii. Petitioner to resubmit the application to respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks -7- NC: 2025:KHC:39835 WP No. 25920 of 2025 HC-KAR from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
iv. On receipt of the same, respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's application for exemption under Section 16 of the KMVT Act and Rule 34 of the KMVT Rules on its merits and in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter.
v. It is needless to state that this order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating or continuing any appropriate actions on the departmental proceedings independently, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8