IN THE PEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
QATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE
'%4~~' '»
BEFORE
THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTECE AJYI'. T _L
WRIT PE'i'I'I'ION No.62SQ OE?2D(;§5{*if4Iv:V'}j-%{:_%§_k X i'
BETWEEN: a M
G.Gov:i11daraj:.1,
S / o Gangadharappai.
Aged 33 years, ' ._ _
Sri Venkateshwara Traveis,..v .
24, A.V.Road,V ._ ' V ' ' V '
Kaiasipa1ya:n,j "B--anga}ofé_%3. A V" ...PE'.'I'I'I'IONER
(spa M.R.Bf;:5§,¢11}$:**'1V{f:;':s:i;;;1§a;-11;I§J3s§,.:Advs.}
1 . J oinf: Qemmissi fer 'I'ransport-es,
:V(B.-angalcrfifirbah 85 Rural) 7'31 Floor,
;' ''eMISL _H012s"t:«,. Road,
Ba::gai<2re~560 00 1.
2", Transport Ofiicer 85
'"Tax:§ttit'3_nfA:¢1tho1'ity, Bangalore Cerztral,
EDA Compiex, Koramaxlgala,
Bangalore City. ...RESPONDENTS
5 1 K.M.Shivayogiswamy, HCGP)
This W.P is filed under Articles 226 and 227 91' the
' V ' (3<)I:zsti1;11tio:1 ef India praying to quash the order passed
by {the R1 in Appeal dated 26.2.2008 as per Am"1ex1.1re~J
and a1} other proc:eedi11gs in relation to the said appeal.
This WP coming on for hearing this day, the Court
made the following:
O R D E R
The petitioner is the registered owner the
vehicle bearing No.KA-01/AA–556-5. The sage
classified as All India Tourism
vehicle was surrendered one
intimation of Ilcm-use was” to *~ \’
authorities as per the Goveeiieient is not
in djsyute that 1. for the
quarter endixlgon had kept
the vehicle But however, the
Inspeetm: ifeieieies who claims to have made an
iz1spect«i&§n_: e1f1 ax; about 6.00 pm. fled a
‘stati11u5g”‘tE1z;§__§;he vehicle was not found and the tax
‘ fieanaefied. Aggrieveé by the said demané, the
. an appeal before the appellate autllority,
order of Stay was ganted but however later
1/ ” was dismissed. Against the said dismissal of
file appeal, the petitiener flied a writ petiiion in
W.P.No. 1005/07 b€:f{)TF€ this Ceurt. This Court,
pmeuant to its order dated 28% September 2007
y’
/.’.’
disposed of the matter with a direction to the appellate fl
aiitlloxity to conduct a second spot inspection o’1T._the
vehicle placed at the garage to ascertain
vehicle is found in the place where it is K
and also to collect other evidence
dispose of the matter. it was c
inspector is required to $3.153 V
The second report prima
facie shows that the tgfthe Workers in
the filed indicating
that place where it was
ixiitiaiiy –. first instance. The first:
respondez1_tie:1otfiariifi*ist::agfiriii1g the said report, dismissed
, ‘_ theiaippeal hoidiiig__t};at the vehicle was not at the place
‘ §x?h.ere,A’Vit.es’sLsV parked in the year 2006. Aggieved by the
erde:,f;t11e petitioner is before this Court. once
agaizi.” V
2. Mr.Aehar, learned counse} appearing for the
” – petitioner vehemently submits that having regard to the
report of me Inspector on the second occasion it is clear
subsequent appiication which was given pursuant
/
W2
to A1mexure–K does not indicate that the vehicie was on
road during this iI1t:erreg1um.
3″
3. Mnshivayogiswamy, learned ~
that a part of Mahazar Wouid
vehicle was not to be fo1:11″:d.V 2 ,
initially ieft. He submits were to
claim any refund of ‘have to make
necessary application.~i;;2;td¢r’V’-VSt:pt§{)t”tWFv” t)f the Act, in
which
btttgétt-..,Q11iesv;VVVt3assed by this Court in
the – vfi1″‘i?= a second mahazar was
Cogdgtléifid. V’I’.}1;£: ‘fippV§:lIat3 authority has extracted the
The said Mahazar was conducted on 13’?!
the presence 0f the workers of Ideal
V -V Btzfliiérs. The appellate authority has extracteé
K Mahazar. The mahazar is in two parts. The
— woulé relate to the eariier mahazar conducted
‘ “on 19.06.2006 between. 5. 30 and 6.00 p.m. wherein it is
stateti that the vehicle in qxiestion was not founé but
however in the second part, it is stated that hafl
regard to the direction issued by this Court in t1’;e__’wr’it
petitien, the second mahazar is being eox1<iiiete<:i"L:'
the engine N0.PLH»–18598-*–'% and chasis
would correspond to the VC1'1iC1€f"ifi (;ues'tie1i{i"
AA»-6565. It is also further
parked in the said place Weeicef
Inéeeci, the 'is =w it1iesses'VV:who are
none other than the inf Builders
and also by ef…I3T§eter Vehicles. In
the teeth 'it.i'is"§1mi1nderstandab1e as to
how eaii proceed to hoid that the
vehicle found in the place where it
wa.s§¥ei1pp0sen<i" V-teVv._iia§:e men parked in the year 2006.
e authority has referred to a decision of the
ieciv1si¢fiii'.ii;3e::eh in W.A.N<).2168/06 in the case of
amount TRANSPORT orrxeen AND ANOTHER
A part of the judment: is quoted by
theflappeflate Judge. A perusal of the said jzidgmenéi
(ices not indicate that if the vehicle is not made use of
and the permits and other related documents are
surrendered, the petitioner is Iiabie to pay the road tax. fl
/'
/./-
Indeed, the matter was remitted with a specific deifeetion
to hold a second mahazar and the
based on the second mahazar. The
observed discloses that the velf.iiele’was.Ain’ite” p§aee”Vi.e«.,
in Idea} Coach Buiiders’ ga_rage;4″-When t1 1é.t.
I am of the View that the of tax
for the period for *-was ivcvilefwould not
arise.
5. Aneexure–K, the second
app1:i,eéiiiie:3,:§:ii, siibmiesion is made by the
learned ” for the petitioner that
not\azVithsL’é?a11§1i11g,’-the rah: that the vehicle was not used,
‘ V’ . d’e1i1a12d neticesvwere being issued. Hence, the second
Form-30 under Rule 34~A of the Rules
was Indeed, it appears to be so, inasmuch as, in
x(3f0luzI11.1’i~4 it is stated that in Cenfinuation of non-use
V–..V’wih:’ieh would nmessarily mean that right fmm the day
…eihen the vehicle was surrendered, it wae not in use.
Having regard to what is stated abeve, I am of the View
I
that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. %
sf’
/
Consequezltly, the following order is passed:
a-
(1) Petition is allowed.
(2) The inxpugwd demand as well ”
passed by the appeilate K
quashed.
(3) It is open for t11eVpef£iti0f1$;»4″to
application for iax.
Rule is issued mzideg. aLss;:1_i1’t¢.
Sri K.M.Shivay9gi$W31ii3?, HCGP is
permitted. {(5 ‘f2.i§:..;_:11:’;;e,z11<)_ C»f __app«::arance within four weeks.
Sd/'3:
Edgé
W_ n