HMT LTD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three petitions are disposed of by this common order. The facts in W.P. No. 4658/08 and 4166/08 are almost identical, if not similar. The facts in W.P. No. 10489/07 are slightly different. But however, the core question which falls for consideration in these petitions are same.

(2.) The petitioners in W.P.No. 4166/08 and 4658/08 are Public Sector Undertaking coming under the administration and control of the Ministry of Defence. The controversy would relate to the Motor Vehicles Tax payable in respect of the private service vehicles operated on behalf of the contractors in respect of their companies situate at Bangalore and KGF. The purpose of making use of the transportation facilities is to ferry its employees from their residences to the factory for work and to drop them back after work. It appears, a tender was floated and the petitioners in both these writ petitions entered into an agreement with a contractor for operating buses to ply the petitioners employees working in Bangalore. Likewise, it appears, they have entered into another agreement with a contractor in KGF. The agreements were signed and the contractors transferred their vehicles in the names of the petitioners and approached the concerned authorities to register the transfer of vehicles in the petitioners' names. The petitioners secured the permits for operating the buses as Private Service Vehicle and the motor vehicle tax was paid under Item 8 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for short, 'Taxation Act'). The tax was paid on the basis of the floor area. It appears, the respondents based on the audit objection objected to payment of vehicle tax as applicable to private service vehicle and took a stand that the tax has to be paid as applicable to contract carnages. Objections were invited and filed and they were out rightly rejected by the respondents and eventually an order was passed holding that the tax had to be paid as applicable to contract carriages. The differential tax and penalty was determined and was levied. The petitioners in both these writ petitions were called upon to pay the amount so determined which was inclusive of tax and penalty. The petitioners filed appeals to the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, the appellate authority, against the orders of the respondent. The order of the respondent was confirmed by the appellate authority. Suffice it to say, questioning the determination of tax payable as well as the penalty, the petitioners were before this Court in a batch of writ petitions. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the private transport vehicles are to be treated on par with contract carriages and the tax payable would be as applicable to the contract carriages. The said order of the learned single Judge was questioned by the petitioners before a Division Bench in a writ appeal. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeals and set aside the order of the learned single Judge and has quashed the demand made by the respondents. The order of the Division Bench was carried in appeal to the Apex Court by the State. The Apex Court declined to grant special leave. Thus, the order of the Division Bench inter se between the petitioners and the respondents has become final. It is to be noticed that during the pendency of the writ appeal, an interim order was sought but this Court declined to grant an interim order but however observed thus :

(3.) W.P. No. 10489/07 is almost identical except that it is the owner of the vehicle who has come before this Court, inasmuch as, he had transferred the vehicles in favour of Tata Infotech Limited and a lease agreement was also drawn inter se between them in the year 1999. But the substratum of the case is that the petitioner was also the appellant in the writ appeals before the Division Bench of this Court.