Karnataka High Court
Sri N Rajesh vs The Joint Commissioner on 13 April, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
W.P.No.24811/2015 C/W W.P.Nos.24812-24815/2015,
24816-24817/2015 & 24818/2015 (MV)
IN W.P.No.24811/2015
BETWEEN :
SRI.N.RAJESH
S/O K.P.NATARAJAN
AGED 34 YEARS, DIRECTOR
M/S.K.P.N.TRAVELS (INDIA) LTD.,
No.20/1, SWAMY COMPLEX
A.V.ROAD KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE - 560002.
AND AT:
CHIKKABAJANE MANDIR STREET
SARJAPUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.C.V.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
(BANGALORE URBAN AND RURAL)
BANGALORE, 7TH FLOOR, MSIL BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560100.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT AND SENIOR RTO
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560100.
-2-
4. SRI.C.MALLIKARJUN (RTO)
AT PRESENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR TRANSPORT AND SENIOR RTO AND
REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY,
BANGALORE - 560100. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI.M.E.NAGESH, ADV FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT No.1 DATED 25.02.2015 PASSED
VIDE ANNEXURE-E; QUASH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT
No.3 DATED 30.04.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN RESPECT OF
PETITIONER'S BUS No.KA-01-C-272. ETC.
IN W.P.Nos.24812-24815/2015
BETWEEN :
SMT.N.SHIVABHAKKIAM
W/O K.P.NATARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DIRECTOR
M/S.K.P.N.TRAVELS (INDIA) LTD.,
No.20/1, SWAMY COMPLEX
A.V.ROAD KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE .
AND AT:
CHIKKABAJANE MANDIR STREET
SARJAPUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.C.V.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
(BANGALORE URBAN AND RURAL)
BANGALORE, 7TH FLOOR, MSIL BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.
-3-
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560100.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT AND SENIOR
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560100.
4. SRI.C.MALLIKARJUN
RTO AT PRESENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR TRANSPORT AND SENIOR RTO
ELECTRONIC CITY,
BANGALORE - 560100. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI.M.E.NAGESH, ADV FOR R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT No.1 DATED
25.02.2015 PASSED IN APPEAL No.17(TAX) 14/15
(ANNEXURE-E); QUASH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT No.3
DATED 30.04.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN RESPECT OF
PETITIONER'S FOUR BUSES KA-54-9919, KA-54-1999, KA-01-
1999, KA-43-9919. ETC.
IN W.P.Nos.24816-24817/2015
BETWEEN :
SRI.M.SWAMINATHAN
S/O M.MARAPPAGOUNDER
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
M/S.K.P.N.TRAVELS (INDIA) LTD.,
No.20/1, SWAMY COMPLEX
A.V.ROAD KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE - 560002.
AND AT:
CHIKKABAJANE MANDIR STREET
SARJAPUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.C.V.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
-4-
AND :
1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
(BANGALORE URBAN AND RURAL)
BANGALORE, 7TH FLOOR, MSIL BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560100.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT AND SENIOR RTO
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560100.
4. SRI.C.MALLIKARJUN (RTO)
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR TRANSPORT AND SENIOR RTO
ELECTRONIC CITY,
BANGALORE - 560100. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI.M.E.NAGESH, ADV FOR R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT No.1 DATED
25.02.2015 PASSED IN APPEAL No.19 (TAX) 14/15 (ANNEXURE-
E); QUASH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT No.3 DATED
30.04.2015 (ANNEXURE-F) IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER'S TWO
BUSES KA-01-B-9910 & KA-01-B-9901. ETC.
IN W.P.No.24818/2015
BETWEEN :
SRI.K.P.NATARAJAN
S/O PONNUMALAI GOUNDER
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
M/S.K.P.N.TRAVELS (INDIA) LTD.,
No.20/1, SWAMY COMPLEX
A.V.ROAD KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE - 560002.
-5-
AND AT:
CHIKKABAJANE MANDIR STREET
SARJAPUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.C.V.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
(BANGALORE URBAN AND RURAL)
BANGALORE, 7TH FLOOR, MSIL BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560100.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT AND SENIOR RTO
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560100.
4. SRI.C.MALLIKARJUN
(RTO) NOW, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR TRANSPORT AND SENIOR RTO AND
REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY,
BANGALORE - 560100. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI.M.E.NAGESH, ADV FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT No.1 DATED 25.02.2015 PASSED
IN APPEAL No. 16 (TAX) 14/15 VIDE ANNEXURE-E; AND QUASH
THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT No.3 DATED 30.04.2015
VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER'S BUS
No.KA-43-A-9199. ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
ORDER
In these petitions, orders passed by the Joint Commissioner for Transport (Bangalore Urban and Rural), Bangalore (Appellate Authority) and the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner for Transport and Senior Regional Transport Officer and the Registering Authority (Electronic City, Bangalore) (Annexure-F) are challenged. Since the common issue is involved, the petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners are the owners of the Motor Vehicles covered under All India Tourist Permits. The petitioners filed applications before the registering authority for altering/correcting the entries in the registration certificate of the said vehicles, by specifying the description of the vehicle as sleeper coach instead of campers van which came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the first -7- respondent Authority, the same came to be dismissed. Against which, writ petitions were filed before this Court. This Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration in accordance with law. The RTO Bangalore (Central) rejected the request of the petitioners. In the meantime the petitioners had acquired another place of business and the vehicle in question came under the jurisdiction of RTO, Electronic City, Bengaluru. The petitioners filed applications before the RTO, Electronic City, Bengaluru seeking correction of the mistake to specify the description of the certificate of the registration of vehicle in question as sleeper coach instead of campers van. The RTO, Electronic City, Bengaluru corrected the same after inspection. However, the petitioners aggrieved by the order of the RTO, Bengaluru (Central), filed appeals before the first respondent seeking for setting aside the said order which was dismissed and certain observations were made as regards the orders passed by the RTO, -8- Electronic City, Bengaluru. In view of the same, the RTO, Electronic City, Bengaluru passed an order revoking the order dated 26.02.2010 and demanded the difference of tax. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed writ petitions. This Court by a common order, disposed of the writ petitions holding that the petitioners' vehicles do not fall within the definition of campers van, setting aside the order of Appellate Authority dated 27.04.2011 and the consequential orders, remanded the matters to first respondent for reconsideration in accordance with law. The first respondent by common order dated 05.12.2012, remanded the matter to the RTO, Bengaluru (Central) and the ARTO, Bengaluru Central. But, the second respondent RTO Electronic City passed an order rejecting the request of the petitioners on 15.03.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeals before the first respondent. The first respondent again remanded the matter pursuant to which, the RTO, -9- Electronic City, Bengaluru without notice to the petitioners, made order on 22.12.2014, refusing to correct the description and rejecting the petitioner's application, though no such application was pending before him. Again, appeals were filed by the petitioners before the first respondent who remanded the appeal to the third respondent. The third respondent without notice to the petitioners, passed the orders rejecting the application of the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners received the copy of the orders passed by the third respondent along with the notice of demand. The orders passed by the first respondent dated 25.02.2015 and the orders of the third respondent dated 30.04.2015 are impugned herein.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners' submit that the orders passed by the first respondent dated 25.02.2015 is not a speaking order and is made against the principles of natural justice
- 10 -
without following the normal procedure. Though there was no application pending before the said authority, orders were passed contrary to the orders of this Court and the orders of the Appellate Authority.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the impugned orders.
5. Learned counsel Sri.M.E.Nagesh, appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that in view of the application filed by the petitioners on 22.02.2010 before the RTO, Electronic City, Bengaluru seeking correction of the mistake to specify the description in the certificate of registration of the vehicle in question as sleeper coach instead of campers van, as the petitioners had acquired another place of business which came under the jurisdiction of RTO, Electronic City, Bengaluru, the orders were passed by him working as RTO, Electronic City, Bengaluru. Hence, there was no
- 11 -
necessity to implead the fourth respondent since the second respondent was arrayed as a party to the proceedings.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. The principal issue of payment of tax relating to the vehicles in question has lost its importance and resulted in multiplicity of proceedings. Finally, recovery of tax is affected causing loss to the State Ex-Chequer. This Court as back as on 25.08.2012 holding that the petitioners' vehicle do not fall within the definition of campers van, remanded the matters to the first respondent for reconsideration in accordance with law. On such remand, the first respondent remanded the matters to the RTO, Bengaluru (Central) and the ARTO Bengaluru Central, the respondent therein to consider the applications for either alteration or reclassification of vehicles. The matter is still pending
- 12 -
before the said RTO. Strangely, the second respondent RTO passed orders rejecting the request of the petitioners. The said orders being without jurisdiction, on appeal filed by the petitioners, the first respondent while setting aside the said orders ought not to have remanded the matter. But, again the RTO Electronic City, Bengaluru without notice to the petitioners, there being no application pending before him, rejected the request of the petitioners. The first respondent on further appeal, remanded the appeals to the third respondent. The order of the first respondent and the second respondent are perverse, being passed without application of mind which not only resulted in multiplicity of the proceedings but the public time is affected. The order sheet produced by the petitioners at Annexure-J makes it manifestly clear that the same is being passed without application of mind in a mechanical manner, remanding the matters to the third respondent. It is trite that no demand of tax can be
- 13 -
made without the Authority of Law. The orders passed without jurisdiction cannot be sustained.
Hence, the orders impugned herein, at Annexures-E and F are quashed and the matters are remanded to the first respondent to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners.
The petitioners shall appear before the respondent No.1 on 27.04.2017 without waiting for any further notice.
The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC.