Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P.A.T.C. Limited vs Deputy Transport Commissioner And ... on 28 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1995AP335, AIR 1995 ANDHRA PRADESH 335, (1995) 2 ANDHWR 132, (1995) 1 APLJ 471, (1995) 2 LS 25
Bench: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, T.N.C. Rangarajan
ORDER Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. The State Transport Undertaking of Tamil Nadu is the petitioner in this writ petition. This case has passed through several vicissitudes and this is the third journey of the petitioner to this court.
2. On 9-10-1985, the petitioner was granted temporary permit to its stage carriage TML 2754 for a period of 7 days i.e., from 12-10-1985 to 18-10-1985 to ply during the Brahmotsavam at Tirupathi on the route Tirupattur to Tirupati. The said vehicle of the petitioner was subjected to check by Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector at Reddigunta checkpost on 12-10-1985 at 6.55 P.M. It was noticed during the check that though the permit authorised only two singles a day, the vehicle was being plied for the third single and thus was making unauthorised trip without permit and without payment of tax. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on Nov. 14,1985 asking to show cause as to why tax and penalty should not be levied. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, a demand was raised on 8-9-1986 directing the petitioner to pay a tax of Rs.5,124/- for the quarter ending 31-12-1985 and a further sum of Rs. 5,124/- towards penalty. So far as the aspect of payment of tax is concerned, the petitioner paid the tax in demand on 20th Sept. 1986. It filed W.P. No. 18616 of 1987 challenging the impugned demand of tax and penalty. By order dated 19th Dec. 1987, that writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court holding that imposition of tax and penalty simultaneously was bad in law. The Bench quashed the demand in so far as its relates to imposition of penalty without prejudice to the right of the respondent to continue the proceedings afresh following the procedure, giving notice to the petitioner, and after properly applying the mind in regard to the liability to pay the penalty and also the quantum, if any, which the petitioner should pay on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. As a sequel to the order in the writ petition, the respondent, Secretary, RTA, Chittoor demanded penalty of Rs.5,124/-without complying with the conditions directed to be followed in the order dated 19-12-1987 of this Court. The petitioner again challenged the said order of demand in Writ Petition No. 14543/1989. That writ petition was allowed by this Court on 6-8-1992 and the impugned demand was quashed directing inter alia, that the condition imposed in the first order of the Division Bench dated 19-12-1987 should be complied with viz., notice should be given to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The petitioner was granted four weeks' time for submission of explanation and the respondent was directed to pass order within eight weeks thereafter. After complying with those formalities, the respondent passed order on 24th Oct. 1992 demanding the said sum of Rs.5,124/- as penalty. It is the validity of the said order that is assailed in this writ petition.
4. Having regard to the history of the case narrated above, we considered it appropriate to direct the Government Pleader to obtain instructions so that we could dispose of the main writ petition itself at the admission stage. Accordingly we granted time to the Government Pleader.
5. Mr. Mangachary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is erroneous and without any reason. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
6. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable in law.
7. On a perusal of the impugned order, we are left with a feeling that it is invalid for want of reasons and for non-compliance of the order of this court. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:
"The explanation has been perused. The permit holder in his explanation has admitted the offence of making third single. Hence the offence is held proved.
M/s. P.A.T.C., Vellore are therefore directed to pay the balance of Rs.5,124/-being the penalty (tax of Rs.5,124/- was already paid on 20-9-1986) within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice failing which action will be taken in the matter."
Before we make any comment on the order, it would be useful to read the relevant provisions of the Act which authorise imposition of Penally viz., Section 6 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963 which reads :
"Section 6. Penalty for Failure to Pay Tax :
If the tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid as specified in Section 4, the registered owner or the person having the possession or control thereof shall, in addition to payment of tax due, be liable to a penalty, which may extend to twice the quarterly tax in respect of that vehicle, to be levied by such Officer by order in writing and in such manner as may be prescribed."
It would also be appropriate to refer to Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963 :
"Rule 12. Payment of tax and penalty :
If the tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid as specified in Section 4 of the Act, the registered owner or the person having possession or control of the motor vehicle shall be laible to pay the arrears of tax from the date of expiry of the period for which the tax was already paid, together with any penalty that may be imposed by the licensing officer."
From a perusal of Section 6 of the Act as well as Rule 12 of the Rules, it becomes manifest that the question of imposition of penalty arises only if tax due has not been paid as specifed in Section 4 of the Act. Rule 13 gives a schedule for the purpose of imposition of penalty which reads as under :
"13 Rules of Penalty :
If the tax in respect of a motor vehicle has not been paid as specified in Section 4, the Licensing Officer shall impose the penalty under Section 6 of the Act, as specified in the table below :
TABLE Period Amount of penalty
1.
Within one month from the beginning of the quarter, half-year or year, as the case may be.
Not exceeding one-half of the quarterly tax.
2. Within two months from the beginning of the quarter, half year or year, as the case may be.
Not exceeding the amount of quarterly tax.
3. For over two months from the beginning of the quarter, half year or year, as the case may be.
Not exceeding twice the quarterly tax."
8. This rule only quantifies the total amount having regard to the length of the additional period of time taken after the expiry of the original time fixed for payment of the tax due. But with all that, the relevant question is when did the tax became due so as to vest power with the authorities to impose penalty? It has already been noticed above that the petitioner was found plying third single without any authority consequent upon which tax and penalty was imposed. That demand was questioned in W.P. 18616/1987 and by order dated 19th December, 1987, the Division Bench upheld the demand of tax, though the composite demand for tax and penalty was quashed. Consequently the authority issued fresh demand on 9-9-1986 and the tax was paid on 20th September, 1986. There was, therefore, no delay in payment of tax. As such, the action of the respondent in levying the penalty under Section 6 would be wholly without any authority of law. In Y. Pede Venkaih v. R.T.O. Nellore, (FB), a Full Bench of this Court held;
"It was only later when It was held by the impugned order that he was using it as a stage carriage that it became liable to pay tax for the quarter on the footing that the vehicle was being used as a stage carriage. No tax had become due before that date."
In the instant case also it was only when the authorities found that the third was unauthorised and the petitioner was liable to pay tax, a valid demand was raised on 9-9-1986 stating that the tax became due. Following the Full Bench judgment in Peda Venkaiah case, (supra), subsequently another Full Bench of this Court in C. Buchaih Shetty v. Regional Transport Officer, Mahbubnagar. reiterated the same principles in the following terms :
"The respondent, will, therefore, be at liberty to invoke penalty proceedings, only if the tax as demanded by the demand notice dated 15th October, 1988 is not paid. Consequently the said demand notice, to the extent it demands penalty, is invalid and is liable to be set aside."
9. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the aforesaid two Full Benches of this Court, the conclusion that imposition of penalty in this case is invalid is irresistible. Consequently, the impugned demand is quashed.
10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 300/-
11. Petition allowed.