IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY 09' NoVEMBER,.té.o'o%)'»VotA. AA
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE; .K,_L MANJt;tr§tAT1:ttV " "
AND ~ .t
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEARAA n'€:'I1\éI1D'
WA N0: 945/zgoga ('r;Mx_I'r)V
BETWEEN L'
Sri Abdul Hameed Sikar1'd:er." ,
S/o Sri Mohammad Hanczgi-f,.V V
Aged about 50 y§éa--rs, _ '
No.91, '1'.S.1?>. .
Ka1asipa1yar'n,"_~._"=-~1;_ V
Bangalore --.58.0fQ02'. 9 .. Appellant
[By Sri. BA,ANa;§a_faja;' Atiyooatel
1. Assisté1n_tVRegiona1 Transport
'-C_)ffic_:--er 8: the Taxation Authority,
'n_,Bangaiofe-..Centra1, B.D.A Complex,
_oKor§i:na»n'gn£n, Bangalore-560 034.
ffhe V.JoinVt'T::Clommissioner for Transport
{Bangalore Urban &: Rural),
MSIL Buildings,
A' *?_m Floor, Cunningham Road,
x = .._E_§anga1ore M 560 052.
Sri.T.K.Vedair1urthy, GA)
Respondents
IN.)
This Writ Appeal is fiied u / s. 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act praying to set aside the order
the Writ Petition 17138/2008 Dated 31.01.2059.' ~ _
This Appeai coming on
this day MANJUNATH, J delivered the fj.fo}lovqing:'..'~..___ it t f
The legality and ,gorrec'trietss'VT(;f._theorder passed
in w.p.No.17138/zoos is called in
question in filed a writ
petition \i)~Lc:;S~E5'ed by the Assistant
Taxation Authority.
Bangaylxore calling upon the
petitioner to and penalty on the ground that
. permission g:~an':ed by the authority to park the
do---.Ve1iieiie.:"*or1 VV"ao_::ount of the surrender was not found
in "theV__piave'eAdof venue. That order was ehailenged by
filing" appeal before the Joint Commissioner for
"Tra:*isport (Bangalore Urban and Rural) in appeal No.3
-»v-{tax)/ 2008-07 which appeal came to be dismissed on
5/
7-2-2007. Challenging the concurrent findings of the
authorities below the aforesaid writ petition is filed:.44:T.he
learned single Judge dismissed the writ _
the matter was listed for prelimina..ry' heairing--.:'ji'his order " "
is called in question in this appeal. vi
2. The facts leadinghito as
hereunder: it it 'V V
'1' he petitioner of a Motor
vehicle He made an
applicatiohgfour to surrender the
Vehicle otjthe tax payable on the
vehicledduje to he permit granted to the bus
wasjvalid frorn__V_g1'Zl«--5'--l.'2.().01 to 31-5-2008. The vehicle in
a question was Covered under the tourist permit. He had
tlie~v'.,v.tai§"".upto 11-10-2003. From 1--1l--2003 he
soughtviexernption from paying tax by surrendering the
'veh_iele"' by declaring the place of garage as KGN Garage
New T imber Yard, Mysore Road, Bangalore.
\»'§/
According to the appellant the vehicle required
reconstruction of body on account of its usage. _4Ini'-Qrd_er
to construct a body building he sought for '
the authorities to remove the vehicle frorh"K(i'}l\l'V"Garage "'
to M/ s Azad Coach Builders, Ke1;';geI:'i_',i Sangaloirefi
on the application of the pei:,i'ti=oner"'the.per1nis'sion;was=.l'
granted on 7-5-2004», Though
such permission was was some
difference of' apyxjelllant and M / s
Azad Coach 'a.g_ai_n:".apVproached the RTO on
15~5~:2':0l04-. to its original place of
garage'li.e..'_KL'}vlv\l Yard, Mysore Road.
Such perlI'i';iisSi0V1f1'V--_\>ifas'granted to the appellant by the
----------
._ 3.:”V’£iVCi§”C”}arage, Bangalore was inspected by the
on 31~5«~200-4. Then it was noticed that the
2 “vel1_icle”‘ was not in the place of venue where it was
xv’
required to be stationed. Therefore, a showwcause
notice was issued on 238-2004.
4. The appellant after receipt of
notice sent a reply stating that”‘”he.is”__
vehicle on road and due to
the vehicle was not found”‘-in’-KGl\l Gar’age. herleforelll
he requested the. thelvvproeeedings.
Being not satisfied the appellant,
the respondentVphad:=A__leiried 1-11-2003 to
3l–10«2OC§é_ questioned by the
appelianltv it _ before the Joint
Commissioner before the learned single
Judge. _
_ 5V,V’The:”m_ain contention of the appellant before us
{:1 thiat demanded by the respondent along with
the penalty from 1«11–2003 to 31-10-2000 is illegal.
arhit.rary and capricious. According to him, the
lpetitioner had obtained permission initially to park the
W9/..
vehicle with effect from 1-1 l–2003 at No.89, New Timber
Yard Mysore Road. Bangalore at KGN Garage_4.and”.he
had parked the vehicle in the said p1ace..§V_i§iihe{15e: _
permission was granted. ‘1V”hegreafter”‘v”‘VV
permission to remove the vehicle éKCNV”‘ga19age'<t0'
M/ s Azad Coach Builders 7
sought for permission to re_–_sh-i:f_t the from M/s
Azad Coach Buildersdtos on 156-2004.-
Contendirig that ,1_the:.¢eha~;ielvzas_ KGN garage
as per _grant.edf¢' respondent with
effectgvifromii;S–§if2'0O4V,A"the'appellant towed the vehicle
from Coach Builders and again
based ontthe ,pjerin3_i'ss–i'on granted shifted the vehicle
" 0 froth l'..;fil,:/s~vAzari"VCoach Builders to KGN Garage the levy
*c.i0'_r.sp¢na1ty from 141-2003 to 31-10-2000 is
'according to him if the authorities had not
Agraritedi' permission to remove the vehicle from KGN
Garage to M / s Azad Coach Builders and from M/ s Azad
.. V___§'.'30ach Builders to KGN Garage again as per the
6/
permission dated 15–5–2004, the respondent would
have been justified in demanding the appe11an4t,to.._:p.ay
the tax and penalty with effect from 1-1.
the permission has been grante_c1…to_rernoik'e" t1fi;e'"ve"n1'c}ee 0"
from KGN garage to NUS
7-5-2004 when the vehiclei-had beerr
from KGN Garage pursuant—-to.":the»._permisvsion§ granted
on 7–5–2004 and have again
permitted the from M/s
Azad Coach onwards, if the
vehicle' garage subsequent to
15–5»$:Z004'_, oould levy tax and penalty
only _frorn0"}; 5v#'5=2'00?~3=_0onwards and not prior to the said
date; o~»support'"his arguments he further contends
"veihirgle was not stationed at KGN garage as
piermitt.ed0':–.earIier and when further the vehicle was
gstationed at M/s Azad Coach Builders as per the
xi'?-.iVpe_r:r5;1ission dated 135-2004, the respondents would
.. __.not have granted permission to shift the vehicle from
'Q'/_
M / s Azad Coach Builders to KGN garage on 15-5-2004.
The very fact that the permission has been grante:d.on
155-2004 to shift the vehicle from M/s
Builders to KGN garage the cause of_."ae'ti.on. l'fo1f*_t11_e "
respondent to levy tax and perialtyfwoulcl
from 156-2004 and not prilsyre-:9 that
7. Per contra’ learned counsel
for the Respondents is violation of
the terms granted, the
and penalty and
therefore__ to dismiss the appeal.
To support he has referred to the
of Court in the ease of Jerome Crasta
it Transport Officer, ILR 1991 Kar 3212.
._ heard the learned counsel for the parties
the only point to be considered by this court is Whether
V. Athielearned single Judge as well the Joint Commissioner
\*’>/
for Transport and the RTO were justified in levying the
tax and penalty from 1- 1 1-2008 or not’?
9. Admittedly the last permissionli.Ihasal
granted to’ shift the vehicle frorrl1″l\/c_i/’VS
Builders to KGN garage on _{ It is.11A0’g’tv the’=.caSe’–..
of the RTC) that from 1-1152003 fO_V_”i’.’3V.P-15-d;»1(lClV¢1 the it
vehicle was not founi_d~~c_in jthe: ‘p.l_a.c”e~._of veniie where
permission is granted The KGN
Garage was o11″;8i'”~’~ 5V:V–2OO4.:on which date the
vehicle Thvelrelfore in the absence of
any ir1aterial’._–Vto_ ueven prior to 155-2004 the
Vehicle ‘waslynotV._parke’d«–.e’ither in KGN Garage as per the
pergrriissiondlof .t_he”R’lV”-C) or in M / s Azad Coach Builders,
the cannot levy penalty or demand tax from
Vl::X”vt””best they can demand tax and penalty
only fr’o.m”””i5–5~2004 when the permission has been
V. gI’a,i’1tedC1.tO the appellant to shift the appellants vehicle
M] s Azad Coach Builders to KGN Garage. If the
rev”
10
authorities have failed to inspect both KGN garage and
M/s Azad Coach Builders during the period the
permission was granted, the authorities by’…
advantage of their mistake, cannot .
penalty. But unfortunately this..a.spect_fof” ”
has not been considered by the l’earriAedV sin.gle_yJud»ge..a5s
well as the respondents. Tlie””ji,_1dgnientVrelliyedaupon by * it
the learned counsel for the S.tat.e’vi_s”‘not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of in the case of
Jerome Crast.a.–the_re permissiori granted by the
ownerp’loi””ti*ie; togs-hiftd “t’l1e'”4Vehi(:le from one place
to another… In the Vehicle was supposed to
be stationed in . _a;. pAa_rt:’rcular place. But in the present
” .,case:<perrr1i~sgsiori'divas 'granted by the are to shift to KGN
Qkzad Coach Builders and again from M / S
l3ui1ders to KGN Garage. In addition to
7that irafierome Casta's Case vehicle was found on road
d It-.andj'..the vehicle was intercepted by the RTO, but in the
.,,_ir1stant case the facts are entirely different. In the
5/
11
circumstances, we have to hold that an error is
committed in calling upon the petitioner to pay
1-11-2003 to 15-4-2006.
10. In the result the appeaiijs
demand made by the resjp’o:_1.de11Vt*~e_ tvtcalling’..upQ;;_;§the
appellant to pay tax for the 1_-32003 to
15-5-2004 and the during that
period is hereby.-q,11ashed’:’arrdV directed to re-
consider 15-5-2004 to 31_4w2O06H :' , .0 ; , Sd/-3. JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE