State Of Karnataka vs Bhavakanna Jeevappa Anandache on 27 November, 2009

[Cites 5, Cited by 4]
Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Bhavakanna Jeevappa Anandache on 27 November, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2010 (4) AIR KAR R 684

Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

 

IN 'ms HIGH coum" or: :<ARNATA£<A;f   '
CIRCUIT same:-s AT Bi-Hl{J.RWAB""' % 713%' >  %

DATED THIS THE 27*" DAY OF;'=N#3éfE??§8ER,_ 2f§F3§ 

5EFO !§E~..__ L x    
HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE A.§£_.1?E%§u'G_QP.§Lﬁ~G.QWDA
CR3:-MAL A.5PEAi= % '!\§v£3'..€§3i»5g:'iC}9$f
BETWEEN:    

State of K3 r:sz':="té§,§'<*ai  " 
  11;. ...Appeliant

(By Sr:.1vfD.I~i,j<{:6ti4::r:§r:,_c_:I:':',HC{§'P)..   %

Bhava§s.a*s1r;a Je.VevaVp'p'a Aﬁandache,

 Age Eﬁéjoir, ' 09¢; D?iv~ar;.« *

 

R/0, manage, ~
~- A. A    Respendent
(ay Sré~;Sanja§i;_ S?;Katageri§ Advocate)

;E"i:;':~:§° .;('.r.'i4.'A is ﬁied Lander Secticn 378(1) & (3) sf

""5i;' "._Cr.F.C.by'v..the State P.F'.for the state praying that thés

 ' 3'.-'?'1:J¥'i"i'ﬁ'*:'_!;' court may be pleased to a) grant leave to apnea!
 a'gai~n,st_,? the judgment and order of acquittal dated

a  --.A19.1:9,20G? passeci in Cri,AppeaE No.6/2005 on the fiie of
.i;he__?III Acfd¥. Sessions Judge, Eeigaum, acquitting the
 '=.réspcndent;'accused for the offences under Sections 3(1)
"  and 4(1) of the Karnataka Meter Vehicles Act and Section

12(1) ef the said Act. b) Set aside the judgment and
order passed by the Court below by aliowfng this crimfnm

   



 

appeai; C) Ccmvict and seattmce   H 
respondent;/accused for the offerings Wit§i_--§'v"§'i-iC§i..'?1'$ i1A;a::i__ '*
been charged in accordance with ia§w';"  ~ .   

This C¥'i.A. having been r£aser;§i'ed7'--t_ii'i$ 'i~h.e«.

deiivereé the foiiowing:  

 

Juoeﬂﬁiiijj 

Respondent is  of a motor
vehicle Maxi cab bearing...re§;ijst:ii2tii)?n".iiItiiit§.i1;ﬁ4--M-36. He
faiied to pay   the    the period from
01.03.1997  ]:_:'ifi'i9:'::itV'ax amount due is
Rs.88,6.'i:'V_VVv9_'/':  Aand penaity cf
Rs.18,ﬁ3;VV§;'~VV5: " iie'  by the appeiiant under

S.12(1_}{a)L ef4'i<a.i9iiatia'ka."Mfoztor Vehicies Taxation Act, 1957

:_'j'"'{'the ifs;-r '£i3&ort).Av*i'i§é charge was denied. Compiainant

'a::s..;iéie4;i4i1:i:'_j£§xs.P-1 to Ex.P~«5 were marked. Ex.P-1

'   is régiftratitiii i';§,ai"ticuiars of the vehicle. Ex.P~2 is meme sf

V3,.44_ﬁa,icuiation'__Ai3f tax. Ex.P-3 is copy of nctice cf demand.

  an acknowledgement receipt and Ex.P~5 is the

V""""i...:'t:brrii9iaint. Defence of the accused is that, vehicie was

 _'4_4'4ifz.=gistered with the financiai assistance of ianarcihan Auto

finance and am his faiiure to pay instaiments reguiariy,

E

 



 

have committed defauit in payment of tax, wh.io_h

the Act is required to be paid in advance.  

contended that, the impugned judgment is biafoi,'V:vt:_oth--'.onxV;

facts ans in Eew and the court ;"'beio.rv"iVbféxéiziliig 

rnateriai irreguiarity, adopting'ba.v:}ir.hoi!§r.';:erve,rse; é';j}V;'5roa"<::h,
has iiiegaiiy interfered with theAijurj'gm'e~n_t at éomzictiioh and
order of sentence passeti' -the__t%E§ii   _

5' SF?  '§,f5i3V  'v.......:Vé;ipearing for
respondents}  imiiiancei oh the decision 3::
the casevioif   contended that, to
proceed isgeiiiriast 3  S..12(1)(a) of the Act, it is

not enovug§1"§or' the A'coinipiainant to merely produce

;_t.:haVt,. the"'ac'v;:£:sed is registered owner of the

.V":§.I:é!'iV'fV'c:'E.'eVf,_ aiso estabiish that he had possession

  or ooritroi vehicie in respect of which there is non»

V"~«.___ peyment  tex. According to him, vehicle having been

  seize-§"by the financier, registered owner is not iiabie to

the tax and the compiainant ought to have taken

\,

/

 



 

obiigati-an on the petitioner ta intimate that  A' 

has bsen scrappesd under Secticxn 34(1) of viﬁttotbt ' " '

Vehicles Act. The existence of; a. ;_3_.£z<)tor"\'r'céii;'i=.sé:,'::=)  _'_a' 

conciitian precedent for levy    at

Therefore, the respondergt  "its: entg1;:itfei' ° 'V

tietermme as 3 question of f;f:t<;?!,,_ whté1,h;_:1*V IIt1t)'tt)f".t,?E§i1iCi:€
was in existence cttlring the vfeitivattt  Tlfiam is
:10 suquixy by the "this  and
tharefore, the Trial Ctizixj:'W'aas.§Vi"x§ér0ﬁg:A_  tcsnvicting thﬁ
I3§{ifi0I1€I' f0}i';th€ ogffciicﬁfﬁ   has been

charged".  A       

5.2V~ "" "Laa:f;3ed'::é;<5*!zﬁéai- ap,5éa'r?rtg fog' the respondent,
ftrstiy, cc1s"r;téri_de:<:I:thV§':{§:V.t3;§lainant has not maﬁa any

inxsestigatiotfaréittxV:r:j¢ga!ft1"~t'a the possessicn and central

-"~.c;\_rer 3%.'-izigie, s}&'h'§¢h..«fact is admitted by PW-1 and there

"--!;ei,r.¥g'~r;p~.__iVnv£ssti'gatien, no prosecution could have been

und'tatt'a'i<evri.*.V--V'tj';_fSa¢ond!y, the cause of action to initiate

 ' 'prosect:t.i<$n.:_ having commenced with the commencement

 V

act: quarts: for whtch tax was to be ;:a§d L3,,

.1: '-
I" E:

 __*--«éo:t'e;t§éAncEng from 01.03.1991 a singfe cemplaim: ﬁied for

""Vtﬁa'peri0d from 91.93.1997 to 28.02.2084 i.a., contmueus

' period of 7 years, és not maintainable. Reliance was pieced

X



 



(ii)

(iii)

  possess§on.-oﬁjcéntrol of motor vehicie.

 

30

ctonfrol ofﬁnancier, in pursuance 6f  M  V'

seizure?'

whether, any snyeszzgagsonjs j:ré¢;u§£gc2. 3..   T
carried out by the mngpsaimggpnor }:aﬁ":z:r;g of  V

complaint for imjasﬁéiion éf,'
S.12(I}(a)of£heAc£?  .  

Wheiheyj,  sz3::gIe-3   is not

maintainabie E{::r_Vn5ﬁ~§ayrniér*27t':vq,f M, {Max cf

more orgﬁe  h 

8. Befgrje  ;€%3£VV:'1ts for discassion,
it is  . nwéntion to the relevant
 contains the definition af
the term   5.3 provides for may of

 3.4 "pr9v§rﬁVé §_i:fivat, tax ievied unéer 5.3 shall be

 the regfstered ewner or person having

_....; 'v'««_f;E&»fL§¥1€3' ofvtéx. $.16 Is power of the State Government ts
  or reduction ef tax. 5.9 reiates to liability ta

'  ..._"§gy"'5arrears of tax. $.12 is regarding panalties.

/

5.7 is regarding

 



 

11

8.1. After hearing the teamed counsel  '

and on perusai cf the orders passetl...by_4the*'Co}1rt$» t5e;£.i§;§:, Kt'

in my opmien, the learned Sessions"A:3u££§ghe'tVhats~_rr;E$diré»5tei§771

himsalf and made a wrong ahp'rgach""toV: the: the

case and the ¥aw relating to the_p'e:';a:a_ItyV prhcéedingrri under

S.12(1)(a) of the Act.

At the  rrsre£t\frn%tati;§et:%:e case law which have
applicationtotht§'I*ri'é§tter';~:t»  A' it
(i):71_n'~ o/-' KARNATAKA vs. K.

GGPALAKRISHNA  AND ANOT1-{ER (AIR 1987

 €'QUR;?"'I91_1_)vthe materiai facts were that, K.

IA'~V§5épa!§ka13§h«na«.:"'*S_henoy said his vehécle to second

réépé'§1d'e§ét"éVéih.. fji2'{Vt)1.1971, but, neither cf them reported

V --transt'é'r .pfV:fé'h.icIe to Regional Transport Officer (for shert

'A ":J}"C'~}..4i.n éempliasaca with the terms of sub-sectier: (13:13)

'.'_a_.n{$'--:Véé.:'bA'-section (1)(b) of 5.33 of the Master Veh£c|es Act,

T ~:'.4:i9'39. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the RTO that

the tax payabie for the vehicle under section 3(1) of the

K/_



 

'$4

amsequenoe of {he Explanation would  +-

owner or £1 persan having oonirol er  {ff a "

nu:-for veﬁide is matuiarify oE:1'i§édf'2"r3 pay  

advance for the meter vehicfe (is   :27a'3,¢  

of Registration is c:.¢I*rerzf.im3_spe{:if:{é tgf V 3113 'éQ§zd£§IV'{)n§ cf
the vehfcfe for use on   '£rrés;:§§ég:£ive of
whether the vehiclghad  3}' F§€1'tE;'$S with
ocsncurreni i2aE:'difyvci.* z.r;o3.   iv u V 
%   

The sche:;:xc%§£7the*.Taxatio:1vA;¢£"is..§uch that the tax
éue ongé,   tribe paid in terms of
Sectiqx;    and in advance and
flu:  pa3: "i;3;; --ccI3.tjnues as Iong as the
 of is Cuimmt but if it so
happeui13_VAti;atVin s;)ite. {jf the: Certiﬁcate of Registratioxz

Vtiéing cuxréntgwihe {vehicle haé not actuaﬁy been put to

"1£ée3»--.'farV'A't3i1e wh{V)uivé'«bf the period or a contiguous part

V  "i.T*1ci*e%:§ )'1", z'3(V:3:t 'heing less than one calendar month, {he

 2  ~pcx*¥.§Gri."'v'pa§:ii;¥Vg the tax should appiy to the Pmscritsed
"'3-Sut1:;t>1it}}' and obtam a refumx of the tax for the

apprﬁiipriate period after satisfying the Authorities

'L

 afa01i':: {£163 i;rui:h and genuinenass cf his claim.

VV "Séct:ion:s; 3 and 4 an: absolute in their terms and the

liability to pay the tax in advance is not dependant
upon the vehicle being covered by a Certiﬁcate of
Fitnass or not. Even gf the vehicle was mi :31 at road

worthy aondifion and muld not be put to zme on the

'v



 

15

reads without the rteoessarg; repaim being  V.

the <2-wner er person having passessian _r:-3+ _<'_,f£;z3:';;£Vr'é;v.:I:' af :3. 

vehicie is enjairwd ta pay  the  _e a*;:id 

918% seek a reﬁmd.

X:§{:rX 

The principlc underiying 'EfV%§'ixaf£ion"  {is} thégt every
motor vehicic issu:;{:1~.__a  ._¥?cgis.fi9ati€:n is is
be deemed a V1;E1&. f€ia<1:s"»31} thmugh the:
time the Cctftiﬁcatfzu  :'vRc%gi§VL::i.iit):{;: current and
¥;h6I'f3fOI'€ liaiélﬁts ﬂay uﬁc§ééI*:.Sec__ti}5n 3(1) read with
Sectieng-4.  ' __if:eV__V'$:Ii%;:1eV.had not made use of
the :fQads.}§&c1é:Jgs§e 3;.§"c§ii1A§(i  put on the roaés dim
to  "ihej Certiﬁcate cf Registration
wa$ --ci1I:t'émt,: or person. concerned has to

seek fii'>;s:«', ﬁab_t35in{1"r;'fund of the tax paid in advance

.satisify'i;:;gVthe:L#s1zthorities about the imsaih of his

'  "13 is néfﬂféf the Transport Auihoriiies is justzfy

A  " for fax by praying that me vehicle is :31 aﬁ:
  am, be pm to use on the roads er that 3'?
A"-§zadV'_'vpI£§ééiAon me roads withouz paymerzf cf zax. It

AA ' ;,*#j;0::€t3:"::"" 521? {he vehfczfes and preve that each and

VV "'ez}ery registered vehicfe is in a ﬁr corzdiiian and wcruid

be maidng use of the reﬁ and is therefere liable to
pay me fax. For that reason, the State has made the
payment of tax compulsory on eveiy registered vehicle
and {hat teas in advance and has at the same time

\

4



 

'$9

(iii) In the case of DEPUTY 

CQMMISSIONER, BELGUAM AND ANOTHER -~...R2w§As       

GOVIND many AND ANQTHER (1992,sLépp' {2)~.sCc.:%;}é2._;,_;ti€e; 

responéents owned vehicles ﬁt fer" tmssegigerT.tre.fjs;3%:>fttei+ it

goods transport. The respective"ﬁeitiﬁcetes_ief!5;eeii;st'tetion
were deposited by the.__&'respi6¥icieijts"'s'-.£§efei'e"the RTO
ciaiming exemption from 'peygbive  of the Act.
The certiﬁcates ..   vehicies were
non--existent,:'    or otherwise. On the

factum ef cerZt'i'fi&:a.teA§'s.to"f..:_f§t.ness being nee-«existent, the
responderits Litiaimeﬁ -eh   Certiﬁcates of Registration

had iosi 'cu.rrei§cy_'end, tiﬁerefore, the Expianatien to S.3(1)

 ef the-yecfA"i¢eesed to  leaving it open te RTO to devise

 fix iiebiiity on the responcients for

  peyrhent e'r"teS£ tinder the Act. The tax demandeci was not

""t.5i."fj._§3ei§i,TLbait-Atkzas questioned by the owners. Noticing the

   in the case of K. Gepalakrishna Shenoy (supra), it

  'was; heid as foiiewsr

"I13 other W'{){'dS, if the certificate of fitness, for

whatever reason, becomes inoperative or B0}'.1~€)(iSt€I.'1'{

/?

 



 

20

it may have the effect of putting to We. _

certiﬁcate of pegistration granted under  of '  
the Motor Vehicles Act. $,-'iziii---t1A::e  doroitaeny vfso 

occurring can in no event have {11o.~i'e1i1*:fe'n.<_:§r céf:"itl;.éT1."_:
rogistraﬁon certiﬁcate affecteé or the  of

Section 3(1) and the Explazteﬁon ad<:ie.<i'vth_"c':reVtca of the

Taxation." ''   '3

(iv) In the case of'%S7}45'E-"!:"}"{§F  OTHERS
vs. BLIAYA C. Tgzpgsyv .._239),; the High court
had held that,"aéehic-!ve:7_VpWhfo§i"t:y'*ifespo;:'deht was not iiabie
to pay  nuotiiihave permit during the
relevant Vbefiodi  had held that, under $.66

of the_I'{iotof"'~VehécVlesAA';¢\ct;'iV 1988 no owner of a motor

"V'~v_eAhic.i[je"i~ceo use ohpermit the use of the vehicle as a

 any pubiic place uhiess it has the

  necessery  It was held that in the absence of any

 'permit? i~tiN;as not permissible to caicuiate the tax payabie.

  Tihe_!;\i§e_x Court by noticing the provisions of 5.3 of Orissa

""~'..__"'ii?iot'n;)r Vehicles Taxation Act which is analogous to the

it  "provisions of the Act and foiiowing the decision in the case

of K. Gopalakrishna Shenoy (supra), set aside the

'v

 



 

impugned dezcision cf the High Court and 

petition.

(V) In the case of STATE' CiF~

OTHERS vs. AKHIL GUJARAT 'f5§§A.}(AS2"'i'.V:$.. MAml;MAMDAL

AND OTHERS (200-<05 SCC 155;?.c<m_$£dé?ing,,_ana§§ogous
provisions contained  3;c;rr'4:"&3Va:;!:'pA'A¥*#¥oter Vehicies
Taxation Act, 1955:. (55 cf"19S8)"{§i$§ '1améﬁ;3%éd by Gujarat

Act 9 of 2002),    

 any manner that tax

 be  the period when the vehicle

is actiuuailyé   and not otherwise aad,
thﬁreforfigait Iiag }2{iAC_é}f'1*§§:1atiOI1 with the actuai period of
 I\Eatuxﬁﬁy..t1;§__S';?,ate has to maimain the roads and

 " A    in pmper condition for all those who own
V    for use on roads. This is irrespective
"   Vivhcﬂmr they use it or not :31" use it
<$ccas.i{;{x1aiﬂy or far short ezittration only. It being 3 tax

and" Q61', a {ﬁe (as understood in the consexvative sense),

   actua} use 0%' the iaublic roads of {ha Stats Cannot

 Be i::;sisted 119011 for incurring the liability".

(Vi) In the case of VIJAYAKUMAR MAIVE V5

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER AND OTHERS (ILR 1999

X

/.



 

22

KAR 754), the petétioner was registered owri.e;fvV.

vehicte, The vehicie was hwothecated to' H

respondent -- KSFC. As the petétioiief'core§nitteoldefau¥t 

in paying the amount due to KSFC, the:Ve}iicie.'ia(as'.sei2aﬂ--~.21"

by KSFC from the possession Voftﬁetitiohher.hoe.Vi_6.3,.1§9$.
Petitioner had paid M.V.i:a.)§ in regatoti twothe §ie'mcieV§up to
31.3.1996. The M.V.taxt".o:o'i'm.encing from
1.4.1996 was not.j:paid  or by the
KSFC. 'the  atrédwnon-use of the

vehicle 'as ._e-- V¢o';1seqttem:e'vv----._of 5 such se¥zure, was not

intimated to..i:'he   petitioner or by the KSFC.

vIt wasg'on¥y ..§ ¥ett:«.=zr dated 21.5.1997, the KSFC

 the vehtcie had been seized on

16..V3'.-19.96:v':'a_sjV_ci  the vehicie was st¥H in its ctistody.

 _Aior:g"'««.w¥t'h' -.the said communication, KSFC sent an

"":l".'f=io'tim.a_tior:'V~«of non-use in Form No.30 under Ruie 34 A of

theV_V'Kaiinataka M.V.taxation Rules, 1957. RTO sent a

item dated 8.7.1996 to KSFC in regard to the M.V.tax

tiue for the period 1.4.1996 to 30.6.1996. This was

foiiowed by another notice dated 29.5.1997 to KSFC

'»

 



 

23

demanding motor vehicles tax due from 1.4.1~*.§§ei'§_'__it'o

30.5.1997. in the meanwhile the petitionero'}:e.9kii'.joa.ckit 

pessessiori of the vehicle from KSFC;:'JabhdA'wia9_TTui';intj:  

the tax for the period from_1.4'.1.9l95 to_'.3GA.6.'1997V'V

remained unpaid, RTO sent a  dat'e'€i_  to
the petitioner claiming l.'-"l:.'-.4f,_ta><_«"fe"Vr_"V't~h4eVlV'o'eriod Aiv.4.iv§96 to
30.6.1993'. Writ petition l9ia.sik%k§iioed contended
that, the registeretlgowneir tojtfpay the ivi.V.tax
during the  and kept by
the ﬂnah__cie_r--eVhld'.ohily bth.e':'i'i._hahcier is iiable to pay the

lv¥.V.tax fol:-slush' 'peﬁoe..V.therefore, the RTO cannot

_ derr3a'r~.§;d"i*=i..V.te>"(iforthe period 1.4.1995 to 30.5.1997,

  was under the control and pessession of

"i<_'_£~3.FCv.:"'*'_..flhevV'iduestioh considered was whether the

 _regist'ered_"owAi:i'er is iiable to pay the M.\!.tax of the vehicie

 the.;9e'riod when it was in the possession of the

ifin-ahtier in gaursiiance of a seizure? Number of

'Vli':"_4"::-ereported decisions were cited in support of the

"aforesaid contention. Noticing that, the un-reporting

decisions had not referred to Sam and 9 of thqct which

4

 



 

24

specify the persons who are Iiabie to pay 

M.V.tax as aiso the arrears of M.V._tax,__he!ci'i'h"g"  

have been rendered per Encuriam and aé*e.*itherefe're of:7r~':.o"'i1.i.'

assistance to decide the meitteir, the -writ e'etitV§ioe.._was

rejected.
(vii) In the case ovf'8Vr7i{ Sirzgh Vs. Deputy
Commissioner forv Trens,i>orte ande.__etftere:'.v"{iNﬁt Petition

910.1903? of__2C§';04461/:§:ecided__A1en 2_1.;r;3.2'ioo'%), the petitioner
whe had"'corn'ti.naed':::to' t§'e.j:h.e registered owner of a bus,

had chai"ien"g.ed' ,.for payment of tax of the

vehicie,' _a coiprgf of geihiicii  marked to him, though the

 demand hed ..beenV"a'cid«re'ssed to the ﬁnancier. According to

V."~tiieVVbetiAti'er§e%;Vthefinancier teok possession of the vehicle

in atn'i'g'h§ian.ded.'n1enner and had even made an attempt to

 have the vregivstretion of the vehicle traneferred to its name,

  the Transport Department had faiied to effect the

A"4"'~.___'7tra'i3sfer. The vehicle was not in his eossession and the

'4"'acentention urged was that, the demand fer payment of

tax, on and after the date, the vehicle was removed from

A

 



V, x_§e:1:2,i<:;J:=:.

 

25

his custody, is not justified and the demand V.
made from the bank/financier, which had  H

vehécie. Rejecting the writ petition,:'¥fiIsia£a heéld .aé'§c::i§:iws': 

" 4. Even assuming fer the aIg'u;n§§ent's s:aj§§: fhéat "f.'t«1.é:~ V

pC¥Ii'£i0I}.€I' is not in cust0£i3z_VL:"'o'f_%1:he: .'\}'t31_'1i('3}4'.ifA jcip  
22.04.2004, the fact tha_t_ : C.(_§I11Z3'.1;.1."ﬁ1(.*€i 't()vvf51:){3 the
registered owner  vc.fiic:l'eivL"i}1§:r:§::5After aléé  not in
dispute and if so  eif  . 'pI'f}'$FiS§I)31S of the
Kamataka Metgzr Vefﬁciéiﬁ  A:;§€," the iiabiiity of

the zegisttireciownéii f&§rVVpa}?m€i:¢iV  continues so

1on.g+as_AtVh¢:. pétitionsfié th€"v:vsgistered owner and even
the pt'.,'I'--:'a-()V:Vl1' .iF.'h{4V)"gf§iS i3§)$S€:S3i0:{1 ef the vehicle also
'oiJ:it.} bec0m.és. 3:§ab!:<: "§jf the a meat of such tax
3  _ ._ _ ._ p Y

éuri13.gL"{']:1e'v yeziioﬁ, when he is in possession 0f the

V  S._  the petitioner was in possession or

V".'«€}§flxe5Ti:I';?3'a'3_€,V'7;;§{;:¥ tang as the vehide is in the name 0f the

"'pefi3§£one}* indicating that he is the registered owner, the

Iz'a.b;iIi';'y on the peﬁtiener does not cease.

" _ V'  If the: banker ef the §<:'t¥.'i1;i0I1CI' had acted in a
   highhanded manna" or had inviteci trouble, it is 3.

' matter between the petitioner anti his ﬁnaacier and in

that event the petitioner has to make good such tax



 

26

liability and he can take: action for  7 

the amount" .

(    J 

(vm) in the case orttt%%sm.<;§R.Lkzwoaaiczasama%

V$.THE REGIONAL mANsPoRfo£ﬁ1¢ER;' aagtvgatoaa
(seam) AND Amomatifj' (1 ,1, petitioner
had purchased a s.Iahic|g_.i~r;.thja  haw by an
Insurance _'ﬁﬁ.(#\: taken over on
15.12.198_§_V    transferred to her
name oivtvty  to an order of Court.
The contravetsy waa  to the iiabiiity to pay the

tax éugj-_=' against ti)a"v?ehi cle. under the provisions of Act for

:*Vt%t_V'ihe.V&'pe}:6iiA frarn 1.Hii.3.9as to 31.10.1939 for which

 'é:as_ 'ra.iSad against the petittoner. The petitioner

  hadA€:nlyv._;:a56vT.1'~'tax from 1.12.1989 anwards and disputed

 ﬁabilitf tr) pay the tax amount demanded for the

A  tafo{esaAi'd peried on the ground that the vehicle was during

 ':=the.§said period nct actually in use. In that connection £t

  awas heid as foﬂows;



 



 

28

satisfactory evidence with regard to the vehicie ha~l»;§ng

been left in the garage. Nottcing the previsions  V.

4, 9* end 12 (1)(a) of the Act and the decision '§4n:jtlze~V.,ées'§e» H

of K. Gopaiakrishna Shenoy {supra},"'it"wa«s7.,he£o the 

prosecution has estabiished beyond;;fee§ona§¥'e_'.oou'bt

case and the conviction and sentehee were  
(x) In the case <;f~;z.,A. _Ai?fnFfED,--VV'HA}I vs}"'s'fATE OF
KARNATAKA AND omens, (2oo4(1ji kt}-..3B;9},»»_'eetitioner was

the owner of ,.a*'t{ehicI§e  heft'h'e.c§_'___Ven'tered into an

agreement '--  on 28.11.1994 for

exchengingiithe u;ehioIes_." Vcﬁtiminai cases were med against

 offonfcesnioee,i§i3a.t>le under $55. 3, 4 and 12(1)(a) of

 foA_r'A«non?'peyment of tax. It was contended that, in

wish of tVtieV".?exci,ta'nge agreement for exchange of vehicies

V «Vbeiortging'*«Vto "the petitioner, eariier to the a£¥eged arrears of

 ':q.t:1erte_ri\,:vVtax for the period from 1.1.3.995 to 30.$.3.995,

 iiable to pay any tax and the order of conviction

T ﬂjaseeo by the Triai Court and conﬁrmed by the Sessions

3 it "Judge, is iiiegai. It was further contended that, in View of

Section 9 of the Act, the registered owner or the person

( .

 



 

29

who is in possession of the vehicle is iéabie for conyictéicn

for non payment of quarteriy tax and the conv¥cti_oh"~of---'t:h1e_. : _

petitioner is iiiegai and contrary to the settked----,eifiec:ie.iee."  

law. It was held that the petitioneé:A_wh.otAis 't--he4.Ai*eg4¥ste:f:e'r2it

owner of the vehicle, has a pr'im_eryéob_i'igatiee"'t:;A.  

arrears of mote? vehicies tax  therefore;'vfheifgcannot
contend that accused  wife }£éa"e..V_i:évviA';:ossessioh of the
vehiczie aioee is liebie to ;3Vay:t't?1e.v'£$§V.f\V»!.t*é3'x.; ' 

(><:%)"fir§"th'e_ce§e"o§'<;'§V. A§PAré~A vs. 2.7.0 BELGAUM

AND ), the petitioner purchased

the ve_hicie"*«..§n" qi3jesti.or§~-"itVon 1.5.3.974 from the 3"'

 and Aso£'d~~~~~%t back to the 3"' respondent on

 iamactzordance with the provisions of the Act,

theA§§etitioAr;eef_§#{%as owner of the vehicie for the first and

 'vseconci qvtiertvers of 1974. A notice demanding the tax was

  7?' seeii*~«t)y the Transport Department to the petitiener which

  ._H'waV£3 questéoned on the ground that the petitioner" was not

  owner of the vehicle on the date the tax was

demanded and he was not iiabie to pay the same and the

 



 

3"' respondent was iiabie to pay the tax.  H

argument was not accepted by hoidéng 'asrfoiiiovgrs:'V'V:v   

"This argument must fail ¥3ece{;$e:'sq1i'io~soCtit}11.V(3,)  "

(2) of S9 of the Act pmvi'tie--..t%3r colJ.oetionit'-of  of
tax either firm} a person totvttcttiom the   been
transferred or propeeed t¢:2"'¥e:=:  or {tom the
previous owner. The tzhoioo Tax Oﬁcer to
choose one or the othe1}_t:iutv._ ie is on both the

resent  the ant ovmér."«.   ..
P 3  I3 __ _ A

:0. s.3rt1;:¢::;h¢ A'c£k:':¢ioof§%%s  right upon the state
to few  ta;e.An'n~i'..gi!..V_if'§teV'i?é_ot.o_:'-venicies which are suitebiy

designed for" use'~.éo"o'A'  at prescribed rates.

Explanation to 'VS'-.3(1)" cotntatns a deeming provision and its

 .effe¢:t""is thfat:V%'es Eongwos the certiﬁcate of registration of

rnoter_ iVsi.'Vv-torrent, it must be deemed to be vehicle

'  suitab-to for' use on the roads. Hence, the owner or a

""'51".'A"«_o'erfsor: heoring control or possession of a motor vehicie has

A  thaV'statotory obiégation to pay the tax in advance for the

 '11' motor vehide as long as its R.(:. is current. If the vehicle

tied not been actuaiiy put: to use, the person paying the

tax should apply to the prescribed authority and obtain the

E



 

32

cities not cease, even if the financier had taken possessierz

and centre: of the vehicie.

10.2: In the instant case, inciisputabiy  M

frem 01.03.1997 to 28.02.2004 :!#é?s"'nqt"«.'pait¥1b.;*V:vtié'e 

respondent or the financier. Aecorciiang ttnithe 

the vehicle was allegedly se§2e§'~i.byv'the  'en
12.02.1997. However, Iresponident"jniﬁsitinued"tot-'tee the

registered owner of thettgrehiteiej;  did not
intimate~th'e'  5%' fe.t;t---¢f"se'i2'.uvi5e of the vehicie by the

finencierttcnt't2;Oi2.t9-E§?i*ev_nid teasing to be in pessession

and cnntrataf -thiie-v._\}eiii?cie. Respondent did not seek

 .Ve;<e:t'i_j;§~tiQ_riV' frpm ;§"ayrnent of tax of the vehicie on account

V.'--,e'f.t¥1'eyeh:i'c¥ev.i§eing not put to use an roads on and after

12.32'.199?'.t'ei:-esince the statute puts the obiigation on the

'.ruegistei*..ef:iA..§>i)ifner of the vehicie to pay M.V.tax in advance

A {f'a»r2dt3iso "wavides f'i' refund under Sectian 7'' cf the Act, it

"'t«"'iéA"g2nnAecessary for the RTO/complainant to conduct any

 """.Vini:estigation with regard to the possession or controi of

the vehicie and its user or otherwise on the roa s and then

«4

 



 

34

being payable in advance, it is not for 

authorities to justify the demand f_e_r...t,a:<.   it

Aeex Court in the case of K. v;'<:;fe;;§iaieii<ri'shIEia,:"VSihetfa-2;?-i

(supra), it wouid be absoiuteiﬁimpossihie for'the«1._StVatei to

keep monitoring all theV__vehic¥ee4_i:ue-he prove'  eeth and
every registered vehicieA'*«is:"in_   and wouid be
making use of the._roads:_a--:iti jtshevteiiigé,'v_ie'::iivai§le to pay the
tax. The '_'.'of,::'ta$c,_  on every
registered  rediiance and since the
Act eiso--«refi1nd cf tax, on proof of non

user, it is "u,hne§:esse}§( the cornpiainant to hold any

__,Vinvest.i_i;'etiion pfIerslte,:the filing of a cempiaint for

   :Ai)f--'g;n'e~!ie!ty uneer S.12(1)(a) of the Act.

"..i1ﬂ1  Singie Judges who have decided the

 gases in. MJIVISWAMY AND A.S.VINAYAKA BHAT (supra),

  'fit_"-i?"\t4e';tfzi.'i,'{ referreci to the provisions of Ss.3, 4, 7, 9 and 16

 There is aiso no reference to any of the

 '  _ Vsieeisiens rendered with regard to the scope and ambit of

the said provisiens, by the Hon'b¥e Supreme Court and

/

 



 

35

this Court. The said two decisions are net relevi§'n't;5S¥1n.c;e¥-.___".

they éo not lay down any proposition tha_t~'av-4.feg3:istere_a 1'  

owner is not liable to pay M.V.tax lend.-ti.ixa?t.4'*.it 'cnl'3{t.Ejle:..;v._iA

person in pess%sion or controipf 
pay the tax. Hence, said  _ha9e'~to_ee lzgelci as
having been rendered  no essistance
to decide, whether' a  to pay the
M.V.tax and   be penaiised

under s.12  J   '

12.    

To_supplortV_ti1e, 'ﬁnciin§".that, a single complaint is not

""main-t.e'i*na--t§£eVv..in res§:se'ct' of the non-payment of tax for

 t§1.a:'r:._or.e' qnerter, reiiance was placed on the decision

in £:-.e"§~.asVé.iofipsirnrs or-" KZARNATAKA vs. BHASKAR AUTO

1%'-«__.44";*?";NANCI£Si?:.(SUPRA). The respondent therein, was the

   a lorry, the quarterly tax cf which was not paid

 the due dates, from 1.8.1984 to 31.12.1984 and also

_'4_";Vi'or the period from 1.11.1984 to 3.1.1985. He paid the

tax for the said quarters on 17.1.1986. He W: prosecuted



 

36

for having committed an offence punishable

S.12(1)(a) of the Act and he pleaded guilty. Tfialv

accepted the plea and convicted himv-.--l "i~1e:.was§  

pay a fine which is equal to tax pa"ya§'!_'e

and directed that the same bVe~..set_>offA'in.__ti2e_Vtaitnamsuht
already paid by him. The State'.ﬁl--ed_:--an~..appaai*a.nd.t>rayed
for enhancement cf sentelncalandf'}a§se':'?é_tfA'.«settin9 aside the
direction for sett.ijng.__  in the tax
already paid."  ltijlelllllllrespondent has
committed  quarters i.e., in respect of

two ceuntszand  tc:"b:é'convicted an each ene of the

 counts.' " While 'alI_e'w1ingv' the appeal and in substitution of

the.jdsentencle'«passed by the iearned Magistrate and

Ad"irect_lng"dhi.:7n VA'tn*:"pay the fine ameunt on each of two

V _ counts, it_"was"held as foilews;

 .. _'_"Whc:*1i a person is convicted for having committed an

 r _b_<:l§'.'cnce on more than om: counts sentence on 31} the
 counts has to be imposed on hiya. The sentence
gran-cribcd under 8.12 is a ﬁne: which 313.33}. not be less
than the sum equa} to the quarterly tax payabic in

respect: of such vchicie, which may extend to a sum

 



 

37__

equal to the etmuaﬂy payable in respect of 'A

vehicle. Thenefere, on each count a e2iniruum'_ settterleje V

atieest has to be imposed. when  respondent. hag 

been found guilty on two counts sexzteﬂeeesn thoeeegtéoh
eomlte, each one being equalh tevﬁe 
quarterly tax of Rs.1,785j- be 
Therefore, we are cleaxiyttéf   '*tt1_e learned
Chief Judicie} Magstrae 3...:

12.1 There  requiitenentiiv law that

separate compiiejintﬁ'..~\h'e's'e'he 'V}ﬁl'ed for each

defealt/qitéetterc}_vLeefVthee'».Sessio'n'eVJudge, by misreading
the saicleecl«sion--  the complainant cannot

include all the"=-,re_ars.{.1.A3_.1'9§7 to 28.2.04) in one case and

""fil_e  gzoreplaint.'"wlzat has been held in the said

.'£ieci~slee_ §'s.»_the't,,l:Vt'h:e imposition of sentence on one count

  by .the"ilea;'An'eidV_ lillagistrate in respect of the two quarters

 was incorrect and since each quarter / default constitutes

  en" offeece, the sentence should have been en two counts.

 _§__"l;ien}::e, a single complaint can be filed for payment of MV

u"ta.§t of more than one quarter and while imposing the

sentence, the Magistrate has to find out the number of

l/.

 



 

 

39

interfering with the judgment of conviction 

sentence passed by the Trial C<_:§u.rt,__ has""a"E'l.ev_;e6' 

appeat, wmch lf aiiowed to statndgvtoald'-tféstiitt-~..,l.n»1Vj

méscamage of justice.

As a result of the__abosze'";:i'i_saa'£slon',A"I"'-alltéav this
appeal, set aside the  appellate
Court and restere:2.jt'i';»at of  therefore, over
turn the l':"ytt_vrleV.a';':_:VV;3el¥ate Court and
restore tlfl'e"céreVl$.,}f,v:v¢;lf:': al'_ldV"'sentence awarded by
the Trial   to pay the penalty,

in ciefaalt, serve o"utVt'i1eAs;el1ten-Ce.

 .....
JUDGE
Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Bhavakanna Jeevappa Anandache on 27 November, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2010 (4) AIR KAR R 684

Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
