Telangana High Court
Kaveri Kamakshi Travels, Rep. By M. ... vs The State Of Telangana on 12 November, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA :
HYDERABAD
***
WRIT PETITION NOS.21257 of 2014, 9259, 9421 and
9666 of 2015, 21448, 22330, 22335, 22341, 23073,
23075, 23076, 23083, 24613, 24797, 28145, 29713 AND
34340 OF 2014
COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 12.11.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No.
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No.
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
2
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_29713_2014 & batch
*IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA :
HYDERABAD
***
+WRIT PETITION NOS.21257 of 2014, 9259, 9421 and
9666 of 2015, 21448, 22330, 22335, 22341, 23073,
23075, 23076, 23083, 24613, 24797, 28145, 29713 AND
34340 OF 2014
% 12-11-2205
# W.P.No.21257 of 2014
Tirumala Cabs,
M Sunil Kumar
S/o M Devender Reddy Aged about 37 years
Rio 320/4 A V Road Kalasapalyam
Bangalore Karanataka State.
W.P.No. 9259 of 2015
Pohtula Bala Obula Reddy Kadapa A.P And 7 Otrs,
Occ Bus Owner R/o H No 20/908,
Cooperative Colony, Kadapa ,
Andhra Pradesh State,
Vehicle R.No. AP04Y8829 APO4Y9279.
W.P.No. 9421 of 2015
Vallabhaneni Nagaraj Kumar Chowdary Guntur
Dist And 4 Others.
S/o Satyanarayana, Occ: Bus Owner,
R/o D.No. 69162, TN Club Road,
Nandulapet, Tenali, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh State,
Vehicle R.No. KL09Y3353 KL09Y3343.
W.P.No. 9666 of 2015
M/S DIWAKAR ROAD LINES ANANTHAPUR
DIST AND 9 OTHERS,
Rep by J C Uma Reddy W/o J C Prabhakar Reddy ,
R/o 15311 Sanjeeva Nagar,Tadipatri,
Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh State
Vehicle R.Nos AP2TB3915, AP02TB3231,
APO2TB3213 AP02TB395.
3
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_29713_2014 & batch
W.P.No. 21448 of 2014
M/s Diwakar Road Lines
Rep by J C Uma Reddy W/o J C Prabhakar
Reddy, C/o Nabin Kumar Amarka,
Rama chandrapur Bazar Jatni Khurda
Orissa State.
W.P.No. 22330 of 2014
Kaveri Kamakshi Travels Rep by M Penchala Naidu
S/o M Narasimham,
R/ o Near APSRTC BusStand ,Kurnool Road,
Ongole, Prakasam District.
W.P.No. 22335 of 2014
Smt V Syamala
W/o V Ramachandra Reddy,
R/o 1/4411331 Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa
AP 04 Y 4446 AP 04 V 2223 AP 03 X 1296 and
AP 04 Y 0779.
W.P.No. 22341 of 2014
Mallina Satyanarayana Rao S/o Venkata Rao
R/o Aryapuram Rajahmundry,
East Godavari District.
W.P.No. 23073 of 2014
Agy George
S/o George , R/o 27/1264 14A, Link Heights,
Panambilly Nagar, Ernakulam - Kerala State.
W.P.No. 23075 of 2014
KPN Travels India Limited,
Rep by its Managing Director,
K P Natarajan S/o Ponmalai Gounder,
R/o Chikkabajana Mandir Street, Sarjapura Post,
Anekal Taluq Bangalore Karnataka State.
W.P.No. 23076 of 2014
4
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_29713_2014 & batch
M Jahangir Basha S/o Late M Akbar
R/o 20/9, Azeema Building,
TSP Road, Kalsipalyam,
Bangalore Karnataka State.
W.P.No. 23083 of 2014
Saif Sikandar
S/o Abdul Hameed Sikandar,
Prop of M/s KGN Travels,
R/o 19/1 TSP Road Kalasipalyarn,
Bangalore Karnataka State.
W.P.No. 24613 of 2014
K R Suresh Kumar S/o K V Rama Krishnan
Proprietor of M/s Kallada Tours and Travels,
R/o No 14 Hosur Main Road,
Madivala Bangalore Karanataka State.
W.P.No. 24797 of 2014
Abdul Kaleem
S/o Mohammed Hayath Prop Saleem Tours
and Travels,
R/o 335/5 TSP Road,
Kalasipalyam, Bangalore, Karnataka State.
W.P.No. 28145 of 2014
M/s Komitla Services
Rep by Managing Partner K Satyanarayana
Reddy, S/o K Adi Reddy, R/o No 15 4th
Cross Koramangala, 5th Block, Bangalore,
Karnataka State.
W.P.No. 29713 of 2014
BABA TOURS AND TRAVELS
Rep by Sri P Pavan Chandra S/o P Prabhaker,
R/o Sy No 58 and 75, Thummaloor Village,
Maheshwaram Mandal,Ranga Reddy District.
5
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_29713_2014 & batch
W.P.No. 34340 of 2014
ABDUL KHALEEM BANGALORE
S/o Mohammed Hayath, Proprietor of Saleem
Tours and Travels, R/o 76 Ward No 23,
Bahadurpur L/o Anekar Taluk,
Bangalore, Karnataka State. ...Petitioners
v
$Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Telangana,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad
and two others. ...Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioners: Sri D.Avinash Desai, learned
Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Arifullah, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
^Learned Counsel for the respondents Sri A.Sudershan Reddy,
learned Advocate General, appear for the respondents-State of
Telangana
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1
2025 SCC Online SC 15
2 (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 689
3 Criminal Petition No.10054 of 2017
4 (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 739
5
(2014) 6 supreme Court Cases 335
6
(2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 534
7
(2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 714
8
(2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 336
9
(2006 1 Supreme Court Cases 746
10
(2022) 12 Supreme Court Case 228
11
2012 (3) Mh. L.J.
12
(2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 278
13
2002 SCC Online Pat 170
14
(2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 584
6
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_29713_2014 & batch
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
WRIT PETITION NOS.21257 of 2014, 9259, 9421 and
9666 of 2015, 21448, 22330, 22335, 22341, 23073,
23075, 23076, 23083, 24613, 24797, 28145, 29713 AND
34340 OF 2014
COMMON ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Though the parties are different, the relief and the issues involved in batch of Writ Petitions are common and they are being heard together and disposed by way of this common order
2. It is relevant to refer to the facts in the lead case i.e., W.P.No.29713 of 2015 as under.
The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that though the petitioner paid quarterly tax for quarter ending 01.07.2014 to 30.09.2014 in respect of State Wide Contract Carriage Permit for the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP-28-TC-0870, respondent No.7 is once again collecting the same and also quantifying the action of respondent No.5 demanding quarterly tax once again for the quarter ending 01.07.2014 to 30.09.2014 in respect of 7 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch aforesaid vehicle by issuing check report to be illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 01.06.2014 and Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014 (for short, 'the Act, 2014').
3. It is case of the petitioner that he is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.AP28-TC-0870 and obtained State-Wide Contract Carriage Permit, which is valid upto 08.05.2019. It is stated that on booking of passengers, the respondents used to ply the vehicles on the route Hyderabad to Bangalore and back. While the matter stood thus, the respondents are demanding to pay Tax in Telangana State because the vehicles are plying from Hyderabad to Bangalore via Telangana State. Since the petitioners' have already paid Tax once again demanding the tax in Telangana State is illegal.
4. It is also stated that as per G.O.MS.No.43, dated 01.06.2014, issued by the Transport Department, Andhra Pradesh, wherein it was stated as follows:
"The Quarterly Tax paid for any quarter upto 31.03.2015 in any of the Successor States shall be 8 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch deemed to have been paid for both the successor States and thereafter new Government to decide."
5. It is further stated that as per the above mentioned G.O., the parties have to pay Tax in one State and in the successor State they are not liable to pay the tax till 31.03.2015. But, respondent No.5 is demanding to pay the tax and seizing the vehicles for non-payment of the tax. It is further stated that in the process, the petitioners are required to pay Double Tax to State as demanded by the respondents. It is stated that unless and until, this Court directs the respondents, they are not in a position to refund the tax or adjust the tax for future quarter. The petitioners also submitted representation on 04.08.2014 before the Licensing Authority contending that the tax paid by them is not reflecting in Telangana State though it has to be reflected in both the States thereby causing inconvenience and creating prejudice in Telangana State as no action has been taken on the same.
6. He further submits that in similar set of facts this Court had passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.Nos.26656 and 26657 of 2014 in W.P.No.21257 of 2014, dated 9 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch 30.07.2014 directing the respondents to abide by G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 01.06.2014 and the petitioners seek similar relief from this Court.
7. Respondent No.3 filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petition and stated that as per Section 101 of the State Re-organization Act, 2014, the Government of Telangana issued Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.02, Transport R&B (Tr.I) Department, dated 17.06.2014 duly adopting the Act, Rules and Notifications. It is further stated that the Government of Telangana issued Circular Memo No.586/Tr.I(1)/2014, dated 28.07.2014, clarifying that certain categories of vehicles are liable to pay tax at the specified rates and as such levy of tax was imposed under the provisions of the Telangana Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963.
8. It is further stated that G.O.Ms.No.43 is said to have been issued in pursuance of Section 72 (1) of the Act, 2014, which provides for continuance of certain existing road transport permits only. Further, it is confined only to the permits and not to the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. The 10 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch Government of Andhra Pradesh has already issued separate G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 01.06.2014 providing for continuance of permits already issued in the combined State.
9. It is further stated that as per Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act, 1963 (for short, 'APMV Act, 1963'), which was adopted by the Government of Telangana, the tax levied under the Act shall be paid in advance. It is stated that the Government issued Memo No.586/Tr.I(1)/2014, dated 28.07.2014 and clarified that the vehicles which are mentioned in the circular are liable to pay the tax at the specified rates. As such the levy of tax shall be made under the provisions of the APMV Act, 1963 and hence, the petitioner cannot claim that he is not entitled to pay the tax in the State of Telangana. Further, there is no provision in the said Act to authorize the validation of quarterly tax paid in one State though paid to both the States. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay tax at the time of entry into the State of Telangana for his vehicles covered by State-Wide Contract Carriage Permits issued by the State of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, if tax is not 11 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch paid on or before 01.06.2014. It is further stated that G.O.Ms.No.43 was issued prior to bifurcation of the State. It is stated that vide G.O.Ms.No.2, the Government of Telangana adopted all notifications issued under the APMV Act, 1963, whereas G.O.Ms.No.43 was not issued in pursuance of the APMV Act, 1963 and therefore, it is not adopted by the Government of Telangana. Therefore there is no provision in the Act, 2014 to authorize the validation of quarterly tax paid in one State or in both the successor States. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, including the interim relief and the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay taxes applicable to his vehicles, as per Section 3 of the APMV Act, 1963.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that "as per G.O.MS.No.43 dated 01.06.2014, the quarterly tax, which is paid for any quarter up to 31.03.2015 in any of the Successor States shall be deemed to have been paid for both successor Sates and thereafter a new Government to decide". Admittedly, the State of Telangana was carved out from the State of Andhra Pradesh 12 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch on 02.06.2014 and formed into a Telangana State. As per notification of the Government dated 02.06.2014, the said G.O.M.S.No.43, dated 01.06.2014 got validated and the same was published in the A.P.Gazettee on 02.06.2014. He further submits that there is no requirement of G.O.Ms.No.2 of 2014 dated 17.06.2014 to specifically adopt G.O.Ms.No.43 and as it was issued by the unified State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 72 (1) of the Act, 2014 it automatically applies to the State of Telangana as well. He further submits that the contention of respondent No.1 that G.O.Ms.No.43 is only applicable to tax payers, which were paid for Annual Motor Vehicle Tax prior to 30.05.2014 is contrary to settled principle of statues.
11. He further submits that the petitioners have paid tax of Rs.1,61,250/- towards quarterly tax for the quarter ending 30.09.2014 on 02.07.2014 at the Telangana border check post. He further submits that for the same vehicle, once again respondent No.6 collected tax of Rs.1,61,250/- for the quarter ending 30.09.2014 in Andhra Pradesh State on 03.07.2014 and he paid the same in interest of the 13 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch contracting parties. It is further confirmed that when once 2nd petitioner vehicle's quarterly tax was paid, once again both the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana are illegally collecting the tax. The action of collecting the quarterly tax by the Telangana Government is illegal though the Telangana Adaptation of Motor Vehicle Laws Order 2014 issued vide G.O.M.S.No.2 of 2014, dated 17.06.2014, states that all existing notifications under the AP Motor Vehicles Act 1963 have been adopted by the State Telangana, including G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 01.06.2014 and the said G.O. is in operation till 31.03.2015. He also submits that G.O.Ms.No.43 specifically states that the quarterly tax paid for any quarter up to 31.03.2015 in any of the successor states shall be deemed to have been paid for both the States. The Telangana Motor Vehicles Act, 1963 allows tax prayers to pay quarterly, half-yearly or annual taxes. The State was aware of the preference and used the term 'quarterly' in G.O.Ms.No.43. The petitioner is not liable to pay taxes in both states, if quarterly tax was already paid up to 31.03.2015. The petitioner argues that only goods carriers, not contract carriers, pay annual tax, and prefer not to pay 14 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch taxes upfront for the entire year. No permit holders paid annual tax prior to the State's bifurcation.
12. Heard Sri D.Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri S.Arifullah, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents-State of Telangana, in all the writ petitions and perused the record.
13. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the Circular, dated 28.07.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Telangana provides that all transport vehicles entering into the State of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh shall be treated as other State vehicles and shall be subjected to levy of motor vehicle tax. It is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.2 of 2014, dated 17.06.2014 provides that:
"anything done or any action taken including any appointment made, notification, notice order, rule, form, regulation, certificate or licence issued in exercise of the powers conferred by or under the laws specified in the schedule and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 shall continue to be in force in the State of Telangana."15
PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch He further submits that the contention of the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.43 of 2014 was not adopted by the Government of Telangana is without any basis and contrary to law. In support of his contentions, the petitioners also relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A.Satish Kumar and others 1; Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi and another v. Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd., and others 2; Md.Ghouse Pasha v. The State of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad 3; Ajmera Housing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax 4; Union of India v. TATA Chemicals limited 5; Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit and others v. State of Maharashtra 6 in Sneh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 7; Sandur Micro Circuits Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum 8; TATA Teleservices Ltd., v. Commissioner of 1 2025 SCC Online SC 15 2 (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 689 3 Criminal Petition No.10054 of 2017 4 (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 739 5 (2014) 6 supreme Court Cases 335 6 (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 534 7 (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 714 8 (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 336 16 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch Customs 9; Omkar Sinha and another v. Sahadat Khan and others 10; Seva Sanstha Ltd., Dindewadi v. Proposed Shri Ch.Shivaji Maharaj Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Society Ltd, Dindewadi 11and N.Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre and others 12.
14. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 01.06.2014 was not adapted by the State of Telangana. He further submits that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 101 of the AP Re-organization Act 2014 (Central Act 6 of 2014), the Government of Telangana has made an order which is called 'the Telangana Adaptation of Motor Vehicle Laws Order 2014.' He further submits that in the same Gazette, it is specifically stated that the Laws as amended from time to time, specified in the schedule to this order, which were in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh immediately before the formation of the State of Telangana, are hereby adopted in the State of Telangana, subject to the 9 (2006 1 Supreme Court Cases 746 10 (2022) 12 Supreme Court Case 228 11 2012 (3) Mh. L.J. 12 (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 278 17 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch modification mentioned in the schedule and shall be in force in the State of Telangana until repealed or amended subject to modification that throughout the Laws for the words 'Andhra Pradesh', wherever they occur, the words 'Telangana' shall be substituted. It is also further notified that anything done or any action taken including any appointment made, notification, notice, order, rule, form, regulation, certificate or licence, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by or under the laws, issued in exercise of powers conferred by or under the laws specified in the schedule and the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 shall continue to be enforce in the State of Telangana. He further contended that the said G.O.Ms.No.43, 01.06.2014 was issued pursuant to Section 72 (1) of the Act 2014. For the sake of convenience, the said provision is extracted as under:
"72. Temporary provisions as to continuance of certain existing road transport permits:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) , a permit granted by the State Transport Authority of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh or any Regional Transport Authority in that State shall, if such permit was, immediately before the appointed day, valid and effective in any area I the transferred territory, be deemed to continue to be valid and 18 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch effective in that area after that day till its period of validity subject to the provisions of that Act as for the time being in force in that area; and it shall not be necessary for any such permit to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of Telangana or any Regional Transport Authority therein for the purpose of validating it for use in such area;
Provided that the Central Government may, after consultation with the successor State Government or Governments concerned add to amend or vary the conditions attached to the permit by the Authority by which the permit was granted."
15. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that prior to 01.06.2014, 1,63,703 transport vehicles have paid annual tax and 74,498 transport vehicles have paid the half-yearly tax and hence, these tax payers will be protected under G.O.Ms.No.43 of 2014. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Sahay etc. v. State of Bihar and others 13 and State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Lafarge Dealers Association & Ors. 14
16. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Advocate General appearing respondents and having perused the entire material on 13 2002 SCC Online Pat 170 14 (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 584 19 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch record, the point that arises for consideration before this Court is:
"Whether the respondents are entitled for collection of the quarterly tax in spite of the fact that petitioners paid the tax for the quarter ending from 01.07.2014 to 30.09.2014 though they were possessing All India Tourist Vehicles."
17. Admittedly, the State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated and the State of Telangana was carved out from the existing State of Andhra Pradesh and it would come into existence as on the appointed day. Appointed day means the day which the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette of the Government of India has notified the Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014 (Act 6 of 2014). The Government of India has notified the said Act on 02.06.2014 as the Appointed Day, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 2 of the A.P. Re- organization Act, 2014. The State of Telangana was carved out vide Official Gazette of the Government of India i.e., Gazette Notification No.S.O.655(E), dated 04.03.2014, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. As per Section 3 (2) of the Act, 2014, the notified day i.e., appointed day was 02.06.2014. The AP Re-organization Act 2014 has 20 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch come into force on 02.06.2014. As per Section 1 (1) of the Act 2014, the Government of Telangana has adopted all the Laws including the Telangana Adaptation of Motor Vehicle Laws Order 2014.
18. As per the powers conferred under Section 101 of the Act, 2014, the Government of Telangana has made the Telangana Adaptation of Motor Vehicle Laws Order 2014 vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 17.06.2014. In view of the same, all the notifications including the aforesaid notifications i.e., G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 01.06.2014 issued under the A.P.M.V Act came into force in the State of Telangana. It is also further notified that the quarterly tax paid upto 31.03.2015 will be valid in both the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and tax cannot be levied once again during this period. Though there was a specific G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 01.06.2014, in spite of the said G.O, the Government of Telangana was collecting the tax at every check post though they have already paid the tax, quarterly tax etc. It is contention of the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 21 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch 01.06.2014 was not adapted by the Government of Telangana and it was not as per the Motor Vehicles Act.
19. On perusing G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 17.06.2014, it was issued as per the powers conferred under Section 101 of the AP Reorganization Act 2014. So also, harmoniously if G.O.Ms.No.43 is read together, the power which is conferred upon the Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Transport, Roads and Buildings Department was under
Section 72 (1) of the Act 2014.
20. Section 72 (1) of the Act, 2014 "says that temporary provisions as to continuation of certain existing road transport permits, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (Act 59 of 1988) a permit granted by the State Road Transport Authority of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh or any Regional Transport Authority in that State shall, if such permit was immediately before the appointed date, valid or effective in any area in the transferred territory, be deemed to be continued to be valid and effective in that area after that date, till its period of validity subject to provisions of 22 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch that Act as for the time being in force in that area and it shall not be necessary for any such permit to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of Telangana or any Regional Transport Authority therein for the purpose of validating it for use in such area.
21. For the purpose of facilitating the application in relation to the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana of any law made before the appointed day, the appropriate Government may before the expiration of two years from that day by order make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every such law shall have effects subject to the adaptations and modifications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a competitive legislature or other competitive authority.
22. In the present case, considering the entire material and on a reading of Section 101 of the Act, 2014 it clearly states that all the laws which are made prior to the appointed date provides the power upon the Government to 23 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch make such adaptation or modification of law by way of repeal or amendment. But, admittedly in the present case, such amendment or repeal was made by the Government of Telangana in respect of G.O.Ms.No.43. The contention of the respondents is that the said GO was not adopted by them as it was not issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, cannot be accepted for the reason that Section 70(1) of the Act, 2014 empowers the Government to grant temporary provisions as to continuation of the existing road transport permits. Whereas, on perusal of the G.O.MS.No.2, it was issued in respect of adaptation of the Central Laws, Rules, Notifications with respect to Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and on perusal of G.O.Ms.No.43, it was issued pursuant to the powers conferred under Section 72 (1) of the Act 2014, which deals with the provisions as to the continuation of the existing Road Transport Permits. Even as per Section 101 of the Act, 2014 G.O.MS.No.2, was issued basing on the powers conferred under Section 101 of the Act, 2014. The laws as amended from time to time specified in the schedule to the order includes all the notifications issued before 02.06.2014 under the Motor 24 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch Vehicles Act 1988 and Motor Vehicle Laws 1989 and so also AP Motor Vehicle Taxation Act 1963. As we said the subject matter is with respect to collection of the tax and the provision of powers which are conferred under Section 72 (1) is based on the Act, 2014 even as on the date of the filing of writ petitions. Admittedly, neither the G.O.Ms.No.43 was withdrawn nor repealed or modified. As such, the contention of the respondents that the same was not adopted, cannot be accepted. Though modifications are made throughout the laws for the words 'Andhra Pradesh' wherever they occur, the words 'Telangana' shall be substituted. It is also further notified that anything done or any action taken including an appointment, notification, order, rule, form, regulation, certificate or licence, issued in exercise of powers conferred by or under the laws specified in the schedule and the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, shall continue to be in force in the State of Telangana.
23. In N.Mani's (12 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
25
PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch "It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law."
24. In Tata Teleservices Ltd (9 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"10. We are of the view that the reasoning of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal as well as that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court must be affirmed and the decision of the Delhi Tribunal set aside insofar as it relates to the eligibility of LSP 340 to the benefit of the exemption notification. The Andhra Pradesh High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that the Board had, in the impugned circular, predetermined the issue of common parlance that was a matter of evidence and should have been left to the Department to establish before the adjudicating authorities. The Bombay Bench was also correct in its conclusion that the circular sought to impose a limitation on the exemption notification which the exemption notification itself did not provide. It was not open to the Board to whittle down the exemption notification in such a manner. The exemption notification merely reproduced the language of Entry 8525 20 17 and since the exemption notification merely reproduced the tariff entry, the limitation sought to be imposed by the Board would tantamount also to reading the limitation into the classification itself. Since the issue would be ultimately a question of evidence, the onus was on the Department to prove by appropriate evidence that the goods were classifiable under Entry 8525 20 19 being the residuary entry. This the Department could have done by negativing the claim of the importers that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Entry 8525 20 17 and by establishing that the imported goods could not 26 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch reasonably be classified under any other head. In this particular case the onus had not been discharged by the Revenue. The only evidence on record was the opinion sought for by the Ministry of Finance itself and given by the Department of Telecommunications to the effect that the model LSP 340 was in fact covered by the phrase "cellular telephone". Since there is no dispute that the technology used in LSP 340 and the handheld mobile phone is the same, there is no warrant to limit either the tariff entry or the exemption notification to handheld cellular phones. Neither the range nor the size would make any difference."
25. In Swarn Rekha Cokes's (2 supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"...... In these circumstances in the absence of anything in the Industrial Policy, 2001 of the Government of Jharkhand or in the notification or order issued by the Government of Jharkhand, Notification No.SO No.478 dated 22.12.1995 must continue to operate in the State of Jharkhand and the appellants or respondents concerned, as the case may be, must be held entitled to be benefits and incentives envisaged by the said notification. The submission which found favour with the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Civil Appeal No.3765 of 2003 is that the statutory notification issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar envisaged only intra-State sale transactions and not inter-State sale transactions. With the coming into existence of two States, incentive by way of exemption from payment of sales tax cannot be claimed in respect of transactions which can now be categorized as inter-State sale transactions. The submission overlooks the provisions of Sections 84 and 85 of the Act which create a legal fiction. It is well settled that in interpreting a provision creating a legal fiction, the Court must ascertain the purpose for which the fiction is created and having done so, to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries to the giving effect to the fiction. When the law requires that an imaginary state of affairs should be treated as real, then unless prohibited from doing so, one must also imagine as real the consequences and incidents 27 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. As Lord Asquith in East End Dwellings Co.Ltd v. Finsbury Borough Council [1951] 2 A11 ER 587, A11 ER at p.589 observed that having done so, you must not cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs. Section 84 bids us to imagine that despite the division of the erstwhile State of Bihar into two States, any law in force immediately before the appointed day, notwithstanding territorial references in them, shall until otherwise provided by the competent legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within the competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within the existing State of Bihar before the appointed day..........."
26. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on Lafarge Dealer Assocation's (14 supra) it was held thus:
"....The said fiction does not postulate and cannot be extended to imagine that for the purpose of sale transactions or even for other purposes, the new State did not have any political and constitutional existence as a separate State and that till a new law was enacted, the two States were to be treated as one political State as it was before the reorganization. The sale transactions which were hitherto intra-State sales being within the unified State of Bihar would become inter-State transactions once the two new States had come into existence. The provisions do not stipulate that such transactions would continue to be treated as intra-State transactions notwithstanding creation of the new State."
27. According to the petitioner, the judgments relied upon by the respondent are not applicable to the factual scenario of the present case. In Manoj Sahay (13 supra), the High Court of Patna held that vehicle tax was held to be 28 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch payable in the separate State of Jharkhand after the separation of Bihar and Jharkhand. However, it is submitted that the said judgment is distinct, and not applicable to the facts of the present case as no notification alike G.O.MS.No.43 was passed in the facts of that case, which exempted payment of motor vehicles tax for a certain period after bifurcation in the separated States.
28. Further, in Lafarge Dealer's (14 supra) the ratio laid down in paras 29 and 30 in CCT v. Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals (P) Ltd (2004) 6 CC 689 was overruled. It is submitted that para 29 of Swarn Rekha pertains to the impact of the alteration of the law in question by the separate State of Jharkhand through the enactment of a new industrial policy, which is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Even as per the AP Telangana Motor Vehicle Taxation Act 1963, Act 5 of 1963, the definition part in respect of the year, which means the financial year, the definition part under Section 2 (i), which defines year, means the financial year, half year means the first six months and 29 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch second six months of such year and the quarter means the first three months or the second three months of such half year.
29. Further, vide Memo No.112/S/2014, dated 03.07.2014, the office of the Transport Commissioner, Telangana State issued certain clarification in view of bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh as per the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014 with effect from 02.06.2014 on various issues relating to vehicles tax, compounding fee and release orders in view of bifurcation, in which some of the clarifications are listed as follows:
S.No. Issue Clarification
1. It is informed that tax paid for No. This will not apply to
any quarter upto 31.03.2015 vehicles of other States other
in any of the States of than A.P. All the passenger
Telangana and A.P. shall be vehicles and goods vehicles of
deemed to have been paid in other States (other than A.P.)
both the States. Will this are to be insisted upon to pay
apply to vehicles based in all taxes as applicable to other
other States other than State vehicles coming in to
Telangana also? If for Telangana. Irrespective of tax
example, a Karnataka or paid in Andhra Pradesh State
Maharastra based vehicle pays by these vehicles.
quarterly tax, for AITs, or STL
tax for other vehicles in
Andhra, shall it be honoured
in Telangana?
2. If quarterly tax is paid in As per G.O.Ms.No.43, dated
Andhra Pradesh for Andhra 01.06.2014 of TR&B (Tr-1)
based vehicles, what sort of tax Dept., Go.AP, "the Quarterly shall be demanded in Tax paid for any quarter upto 30 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch Telangana? 31.03.2015 in any of the successor States shall be deemed to have been paid for both the successor States."
Hence, quarterly tax paid in A.P. upto 31.03.2015 for A.P. based vehicles shall be honoured in Telangana and there is no need to levy additional tax in Telangana for such vehicles till 31.03.2015.
3. If a Andhra Pradesh based As per G.O.Ms.No.43, dated vehicle is found in Telangana 01.06.2014 of TR&B (Tr-1) not covered by home State tax, Dept., quarterly tax paid for any quarter upto 31.03.2015 shall be deemed to have been paid for both the States. If tax is not paid in A.P. and non-
payment is detected in Telangana., it shall be presumed that home State tax is not paid and tax in Telangana shall be insisted upon as per G.O.Ms.No.285, dated 15.09.1984.
In all such cases, as is the practice, the owner shall be insisted on clearing his home State tax dues first and then comeback to pay CF and taxes for the State of Telangana.
On perusal of the same, the said clarification does not have statutory force as it being in the form of clarification. As such, it cannot be a statutory order to enforce the same. Therefore, the taxes cannot be collected under the said circular.
31
PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch
30. Further, G.O.Ms.No.43 would very well come within the notification issued by the Government by way of G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 17.06.2014. As such, the respondents are bound by the said G.O. In view of the same, subsequent collection of the tax from the petitioners, though having collected the same for one quarter till 31st March 2015, is not proper and it is illegal.
31. Considering the above circumstances and in view of the reasons cited, this Bench is of the opinion that collection of tax by the respondents commencing from 01.07.2014 ending with 30.09.2014 in spite of payment of the tax for the said quarterly period has to be treated as the tax which is paid up to 31.03.2015 and it whould be valid in both the States of Telangana and in Andhra Pradesh and the same cannot be levied once again during the said period.
32. The tax shall be taken as the quarterly tax paid as per G.O.Ms.No.45 and the respondents are prohibited from collecting the quarterly tax once again on the ground that collection of quarterly tax by either of the Governments i.e., the State of Telangana or the State of Andhra Pradesh 32 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch shall be treated as the payment of tax for both the States which was already paid by the petitioners. Therefore, the action of the respondents in collection of quarterly tax from the petitioners in respect of All India Tourist Vehicles is illegal and void and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.43, Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR-I) Department, dated 01.06.2014 and the respondents are further directed not to collect or insist upon the petitioners to pay the quarterly tax which was already paid during said period and the same shall be taken as a payment made for both the States. In view of the same, the respondents' contention cannot be accepted.
33. For the said reasons, W.P.Nos.21257, 21448, 22330, 22335, 22341, 23073, 23075, 23076, 23083, 24613, 24797, 28145, 29713 and 34340 OF 2014 are deserves to be allowed.
34. So far as W.P.Nos.9666, 9259 and 9421 of 2015 are concerned, the said writ petitions are filed and joined along with batch of Writ Petition No. 21257 of 2014. Whereas, the present writ petitions are filed questioning action of the respondent and also seeking 33 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch declaration that G.O.M.S No.15, Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR-I), Department, dated 30.03.2015 issued by the 1st respondent, is illegal and void. That the State of Telangana is not entitled to levy tax and collect motor vehicle tax with effect from 01.04.2015 onwards in respect of the petitioners state-wide contract carriage vehicles as mentioned in the cause title as long as Hyderabad continues to be common capital of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana, as per Section 5 of AP Re-organization Act, 2014.
35. As seen from the record, W.P.Nos.9666, 9259 and 9421 of 2015 were filed after passing of the interim order dated 13.11.2014, in batch of Writ Petition No. 21257 of 2014 and batch. The said interim order is reproduced as under:
"These vacate stay applications have been taken up for clarification of our interim order earlier granted. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
"Tax already collected by both the States, if any, shall abide by the result of the writ petitions. In future as an interim measure, we direct both the States must respect the decision taken on 01.06.2014 and no official shall act contrary to the said decision.34
PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch "The quarterly tax paid for any quarter upto 31.03.2015 in any of the successor States shall be deemed to have been paid for both the successor States and thereafter new Governments to decide."
The language of the above order is very plain and does not contain any ambiguity. It is not difficult for us to clarify our interim order in the context of the aforesaid impugned order.
We clarify that irrespective of the date of payment and collection whether before or after 01.06.2014 if payment is made by any vehicle owner in advance for any quarter upto 31.03.2015 to either of successor States then another successor State can release the tax once again for the said period because the order is very specific that collection by either of the States for the above period will have to be apportioned in accordance with the provisions of Section 72 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act, 2014 and this order is in consonance with the said provision of the Act. Accordingly, both the State Governments shall Act. We make it clear that payment made by any vehicle owner in relation to any quarter after 31.03.2015 obviously will have to be collected by the respective state.
Accordingly, WVMPs are disposed of."
36. So, also the order, dated 30.07.2014 passed by this Court is also extracted hereunder: "W.P.No.21257 of 2014
"The Writ Petition is admitted for hearing. Rule nisi. Call for records.
Notice returnable in four weeks.
W.P.M.P.No.26656 & 26657 of 2014 Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks from today. Affidavit in reply to be filed within two weeks thereafter. No separate notice need be issued as the learned Government Pleaders for both the States must respect The decision taken on 01.06.2014 and no official shall act contrary to the said decision.
Matter to appear five weeks hence."35
PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch
37. Coming to W.P.No.9705 of 2015 and batch, the main grievance of the petitioners is that they have challenged G.O.Ms.No.15 Transport, Road and Building Department on the ground that the Government Order was passed by the State of Telangana wherein the it was decided and further notified to levy the Motor Vehicles Tax at the specified rates and periods on all the transport vehicles including the contract carriages, goods carriages, motorway cabs, maxi cabs, commercial tractor-trailers, passenger auto rickshaws entering into the State of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh, treating them to be as other State Vehicles. The petitioners are owners of the state-wide contract carriages, buses, for which permits are granted by the transport authorities of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh, which are valid as on the date of filing of the writ petitions and these permits enable the petitioners to ply their buses within the area of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. On bifurcation of the both States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana it is contended by learned counsel that for the respondents that Hyderabad is to be a common capital for both the States of Telangana and the State of Andhra 36 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch Pradesh for a period not exceeding 10 years. It is further contended that in view of the same as people from the Andhra Pradesh do visit Hyderabad as such under Section 72 of the Act of 2014 which says that no toll entrance fees or other charges of like nature shall be levied after the appointed day in respect of any transport vehicle for its operation in any of the successor States under any such permit. Further, the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.M.S.No.43, Transport, Roads and Buildings, (TR-
1), Department dated 01.06.2014, directing the quarterly tax paid for any quarter up to 31st March 2015 in any of the successor states shall be deemed to have been paid for both the successor states and the respective Governments are directed to decide this for the subsequent period. It is the grievance of the petitioners that as the State of Telangana was not implementing the aforementioned order and forcibly collecting the tax in the State of Telangana, the operators have preferred similar batch of writ petitions before this High Court and wherein an interim order of stay was granted on 30th July 2014, to the effect that tax already collected both the States, if any, shall abide by the result of 37 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch the writ petitions and further directed that both the States must respect the decision taken on 01.06.2014 and no official shall act contrary to the same.
38. Besides that, it is also further contended that the State of Telangana has adopted the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act 1988, AP Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963 and certain laws, rules, and notifications issued thereunder. It is further argued and contended that the notification is contrary to the provisions of Section 72 of the Act 2014 and the petitioner vehicles holding valid permits in undivided State shall be treated to be the vehicles of State of Telangana alone and not of other State vehicles.
39. It is further contended that, including the petitioner is the one who was exempted from paying tax in the State of Telangana and vice versa in terms of G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 01.06.2014 and contended that the Telangana State has no power or jurisdiction to impose Motor Vehicle Tax on the petitioner's vehicle with effect from 01.04.2015. The Central Government has not authorized the State Government to label the same as provided under 38 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch the provisions of Sub Section (2) of Section 72 of the Act, 2014.
40. It is appropriate to extract sub Section (2) of Section 72 of the Act of 2014 hereunder:
"72. Temporary provisions as to continuance of certain existing road transport permits:-
(1) ........
(2) No tolls, entrance fees or other charges of a like
nature shall be levied after the appointed day in respect of any transport vehicle for its operations in any of the successor States under any such permit, if such vehicle was, immediately before that day, exempt from the payment of any such toll, entrance fees or other charges for its operations in the transferred territory;
Provided that the Central Government may, after consultation with the State Government or Governments concerned, authorise the levy of any such toll, entrance feeds or other charges, as the case may be:
Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not be applicable where any such tolls, entrance fees or other charges of a like nature are leviable for the use of an road or bridge which is constructed or developed for commercial purpose by the State Government, an undertaking of the State Government, a joint understanding in which the State Government is a shareholder or the private sector."
41. As per sub Section (2), no tolls, entrance fees or other charges of like nature shall be levied after the appointed day in respect of any transport vehicles for its operation in any of the successor states under any such permit, if such vehicles were immediately before that day 39 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch exempted from the payment of any such tolls, entrance fees or other charges for its operation in the transferred territory, provided that the Central Government may, after consultation with the State Government or Governments concerned, authorize the levy of any such toll, entrance fees or other charges as the case may be, provided further that the provisions of this subscription shall not be applicable where any such toll, Entrance fees or other charges of a like nature are leviable for the use of any road or bridge which is constructed or developed for commercial purpose by the State Government, an undertaking of State Government a joint undertaking in which the State Government is a shareholder or the private sector.
42. The very contention of the petitioners is that the State of Telangana is not entitled to levy and collect Motor Vehicle Tax with effect from 01.04.2015 onwards in respect of the petitioner, State-wide contract, carriage making as mentioned above and the very G.O.Ms.15, Transport, Road and Buildings (TR-I) Department, dated 30.03.2015, issued by the 1st Respondent, is illegal; G.O.Ms.No.15, which says 40 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch that the said GO was issued pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.43 wherein it is stated that the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh have issued orders that in pursuance of the provisions of Section 72 (1) of the AP Re-organization Act 2014, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh resolved the quarterly tax paid for any quarter up to 31st March 2015 in any of the successor States shall be deemed to have been paid for both the successor States. Further, as per the G.O.Ms.No.2, the State of Telangana has adopted all the Acts, Rules, Common Notifications, etc. issued prior to 26.03.2014 and shall continue to be enforced in the State of Telangana. The State of Telangana has also adopted the State enactments, enactments of the AP Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963 and AP Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules 1963 and all notifications issued under the AP Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963.
43. Further, issuance of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 30.03.2015, which is the impugned GO under the present writ petitions was issued pursuant to the directions issued by the then High Court for the State of Telangana and for 41 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the present batch of writ petitions and also batch of Writ Petitions Nos. 21257 and 21562 of 2014 and writ petition Nos. 7928 and 7982 of 2016, dated 25.03.2015. Further in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Telangana Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963, as adopted vide G.O.Ms.No.2, 17.06.201, as we said, the G.O. came into effect from 01.04.2015.
44. In view of the same, it is clear that the said G.O. is applicable from the date i.e., on 01.04.2015. The further contention of the petitioners is that in view of G.O.Ms.No.43 and G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 17.06.2014, the quarterly tax which was paid for any quarter up to 01.03.2015 in any successor State shall be deemed to have been paid for both the successor States and thereafter new Government has to decide on the issue. So pursuant to the said G.O. and the directions given by this Court, the present G.O.Ms.No.15 was issued. As per G.O.M.S No.43, no doubt any quarterly tax which is paid as per the definition of the quarter which is defined under the Motor Vehicle Taxation which 42 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch specifically states that any quarter of the four months of the year which is paid.
45. This Court by order dated 13.11.2014 in WVMP in present batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P.No.29713 of 2014 and batch held that irrespective of the date of payment and collection, whether before or after 01.06.2014, the payment is made by any vehicle owner in advance for any quarter up to 31.03.2015 to either of the successor States, then another successor State cannot realize the tax once again for the said period, because the order is very specific that collection by either of the State for the above period will have to be apportioned between both States in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 (1) of the AP Reorganization Act, 2014. This order is in consonance with the said provision of the Act and accordingly, both the State Governments shall Act and this bench makes it clear that payment made by any vehicle owner in relation to any quarter after 31.03.2015, obviously for further quarters will have to be collected by respective States.
43
PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch
46. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that G.O.Ms.No.15, which was issued by the State Government of Telangana, and come into force from 01.04.2015, would be very well within the ambit and power of the Government of the Telangana, and this Court does not see any grounds to question the competency of the Government of Telangana, and there is no illegality that can be seen in issuance of the said G.O. Hence, petitioners are not entitled for any such relief or for issuance of writ or direction seeking the relief to declare G.O.Ms.No.15, and this Court is of the opinion that the State of Telangana is entitled to levy, and collect motor vehicle tax with effect from 01.04.2015 onwards, in respect of the petitioners State-wide contract mentioned in the carriage, and the contention that it continues to be the common capital of the State of AP and State of Telengana as per Section 5 of the AP Reorganization Act, 2014, cannot be accepted, and as such, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as sought for and both the States are entitled to collect the tax from the date of 01.04.2015 if not paid.
44
PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch
47. We further make it clear that any quarterly tax which is paid by the petitioners prior to 31.03.2015, shall be apportioned by both the States, in accordance with Section 70 (1) of the AP State Re-organization Act (9 of 2014), and that either of the States are not entitled to, or entitled to insist upon the petitioners to pay the quarterly tax, which is already paid for the said period and the petitioners are entitled to ply their vehicles as per the permit or the tax which is received till the expiry of the said permit or the tax which was received.
48. There is no illegality in issuing the said G.OMs.No.15, 30.03.2015 and also not contrary to any of the provisions of AP Reorganization Act 2014 and so also the AP, Telangana Motor Vehicle Taxation Act or the Rules. As such, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted, and W.P.Nos.9666, 9259 and 9421 of 2015 filed by the petitioners deserve to be and are liable to be dismissed.
49. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.21257, 21448, 22330, 22335, 22341, 23073, 23075, 23076, 23083, 24613, 24797, 28145, 29713 and 34340 of 2014 are allowed and 45 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_29713_2014 & batch W.P.Nos.9666, 9259 and 9421 of 2015 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Date:12.11.2025 Note:
L.R.copy to be marked.
(B/o) YVL