ORDER
Ramakrishna, J.
1. In this Appeal by the State, the order of the Learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 5395 of 1980 is called in question.
2. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows :–Respondent is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. APC 4699 Admittedly, as on the date. when a case was lodged before the Magistrate it was not covered by any permit. The respondent, however, Intimated the non use of the vehicle in question for the period from 1-11-1977 to 31-12-1978 inasmuch as according to the respondent, the vehicle was surrendered along with the documents.
3. The undisputed fact further discloses that on 2-6-1978, the vehicle was found plying with full complements when it was shopped by a Motor Vehicle Inspector. Therefore, the authorities prosecuted the respondent before the Magistrate. The Learned Magistrate, having found the respondent guilty under Section 12, convicted him and imposed a penalty, of Rs. 4.290/-, an amount equivalent to tax payable for the quarter.
4. The authorities also called upon the respondent to pay the tax payable on the vehicle in accordance with law for the whole year. The stand taken by the respondent before the authorities was that since he had paid the fine amount of Rs. 4,290- as imposed by the Magistrate, which was equivalent to the tax payable by him for a quarter, he was entitled to deduction to that extent. Since he could not succeed before the authorities, he approached this Court in the Writ Petition.
5. The Learned Single Judge – interpreted the provisions of Section 12 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, in his order – and held that since the respondent had paid an amount equivalent to the tax for a quarter, pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate, he was entitled to deduction to that extent. In that view, be allowed the Writ Petition and directed deduction of the amount the respondent bud paid pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the State has come up in this appeal.
7. The main contention of the State is that, having regard to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the amount of penalty paid by the respondent as imposed on him by the Court cannot be treated as adjusted towards the amount of tax paid for a quarter and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the deduction. In order to appreciate the contention of the State, it is necessary to extract the provisions of Section 12. It reads as follows :-
“Penalties-(1) Whoever :–
(a) as a registered owner or otherwise has possession or control of any motor vehicle liable to tax under this Act without having paid the amount of tax or additional tax due in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of such vehicle, or
(b) delivers a declaration or additional declaration wherein the particulars required by or under this Act to be therein set-forth are not fully and truly stated, shall on conviction, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to the quarterly tax payable in respect of such vehicle; and in the event of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under this Section with fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to twice the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle ; and the amount of any tax due shall be recoverable as if it were a fine.”
By a perusal of Section 12(1)(b), it follows that the minimum penalty that has to be imposed by the Criminal Court against a person found guilty, is an amount equal to the tax that has to be paid for a quarter. In that view, in the instant case, the learned Magistrate having found the respondent guilty, convicted him, and sentenced him to pay a fine equal to tax payable for a quarter. That is the minimum penalty that can be imposed by a Criminal Court. Therefore, whatever may be the amount that is paid by way of fine, on conviction, cannot be treated as the amount of tax paid.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent however, contended that, as the fine amount imposed by the Criminal Court has been paid, the benefit of deduction to that extent must have been given to the respondent. We do not see any force in the contention of the Learned Counsel. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Single Judge, in the instant case, cannot be sustained.
9. In the result, we make the following :-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Appeal is allowed in reversal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, and
(ii) In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
