VENKATARAMIAH - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the levy of additional tax under S. 8 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of his motor vehicle, which he has been running as a stage carriage under a permit issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the appellant herein questioned the levy of the said additional tax before the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petn. No. 31533 of 1982. That writ petition was dismissed by the High Court following an earlier decision of a Division Bench of that Court in Noorullha Khan v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petn. No. 8302 of 1980 and connected cases decided on 26-6-1985 = (Reported in ILR (1985) Kant 2711). The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave against the decision of the High Court dismissing his writ petition.
(2.) THE facts of the case are briefly these. THE appellant is the registered owner of the motor vehicle which he has been running as a stage carriage under a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. He is liable to pay tax in respect of the said motor vehicle under S. 3 of the Act which provides that a tax at the rates specified in Part A of the Sch. to the Act shall be levied on all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads. Item 4 in Part A of the Sch. to the Act, as it stood in the year 1985, which related to the levy of tax on motor vehicles which were used as stage carriages read thus :- JUDGEMENT_452_SUPP1_1987Html1.htm Item 5 of Part A of the Sch. to the Act, as if stood during the relevant time, referred to the tax payable by motor vehicles which were used as contract carriages under permits issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Item 6 of Part A of the Sch. to the Act has been repealed. Item 7 of Part A of the Sch. to the Act, as it stood during the relevant period, dealt with the tax payable in respect of omnibuses. It reads thus : JUDGEMENT_452_SUPP1_1987Html2.htm The appellant was liable to pay at the time when he filed the writ petition Rs. 160.00 per quarter for every seated passenger (other than the driver and the conductor) which the vehicle was permitted to carry and Rs. 45.00per quarter for every passenger (other than the seated passengers, the driver and the conductor) which the vehicle was permitted to carry. Section 8 of the Act which provides for payment of additional tax in respect of motor vehicles reads thus :- "8. Payment of additional tax- When any motor vehicle in respect of which a tax has been paid is altered or proposed to be used in such a manner as to cause vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable, the registered owner or person who is in possession or control of such, vehicle shall pay an additional tax or a sum which is equal to the difference between the tax already paid and the tax which is payable in respect of such vehicle for the period for which the higher rate of tax is payable in consequence of its being altered or so proposed to be used and taxation authority shall not grant a fresh taxation card in respect of such vehicle so altered or proposed to be so used until such amount of tax has been paid."
(3.) IT appears that on some stray occasions prior to the institution of the writ petition it had been found that in the motor vehicle which the appellant was operating as a stage carriage there were few passengers in excess of the number of passengers which he was allowed to carry under the permit issued to him under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in respect of the said motor vehicle. The taxation authority under the Act, therefore, issued a demand for payment of additional tax under the provisions of S. 8 of the Act, on the ground that the appellant had proposed to use the motor vehicle in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax was payable following the decision of the High Court in Noorullha Khan's case (supra). Aggrieved by the said demand he filed the writ petition. As mentioned above, that petition having been dismissed, this appeal by special leave has been filed. Since the judgment of the High Court under appeal is based on the decision in Noorullha Khan's case (supra) it is necessary to set out briefly the facts in that case. Noorullha Khan who was the petitioner in that case was the registered owner of a motor vehicle classified as an 'omnibus' with a seating capacity of 15 + 1 under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and was subjected to tax on that basis under item 7(b) of Part A of the Sch. to the Act. He was liable to pay at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per seat per quarter under the said provision. He was, however, called upon by the taxation authority to pay an additional sum by way of tax on two different occasions calculating the tax on the basis of the number of passengers carried in the vehicle on those two occasions. He challenged the said demands before the Deputy Commissioner for Transport in appeal. That appeal having been dismissed he filed Writ Petition No. 8302 of 1980, referred to above, on the file of the High Court. The High Court took the view that the petitioner in that writ petition having used the vehicle on two occasions for carrying passengers in excess of the number of passengers which he was allowed to carry under the permit he had become liable to pay additional tax for the proposed user of the motor vehicle in a manner different from the manner in which he was permitted to run it. In support of its decision the High Court relied strongly on the decision in Payne v. Allock (1932) 2 KB 413 in which the conviction of the owner of a motor vehicle in respect of which he had obtained a licence to use it as a private motor car for having used it for the conveyance of goods had been upheld.;