- (1.) THE writ petitioner, a stage carriage operator, has filed the above writ petitioner seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in Memo.No.A2/102060/86, dated 6.4.1987 and directing the respondents to refund the tax applied for in respect of the petitioner's stage carriage T.N.Z 8127 for the period commencing from 29.1.1986 to 31.3.1986.
(2.) THE petitioner, owner of the stage bearing registration No.T.N.Z. 8127 has stated that the said vehicle met with an accident, that permit was granted for the stoppage of the said vehicle for the period commencing from 29.1.1986 to 14.2.1986, that the said vehicle was entrusted to M/s. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Limited, Pudukottai for major repairs, that the vehicle was returned only on 18.4.1986, that the vehicle was not use on the roads during the said period, that the tax for the quarter ending with 31,3.1986 amounting to Rs.13,780 had been remitted by her, that the petitioner had applied for refund of the amount which was verified by the 1st respondent, that the physical verifica- tion report in respect of the said vehicle was also received by the 1st respondent, certifying that the vehicle did not at all ply during the relevant period, that her application for refund the tax for the period commencing from 29.1.1986 to 31.3.1986 had been rejected solely on reasoning that the petitioner had filed to surrender the taxation licence, that on highly technical ground the request for refund has been rejected, that she had complied with the requirements prescribed under Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules and that there is delay in forwarding the taxation licence for the said vehicle for the said period. It is contended that rejection of refund by the 1st respondent is invalid, as it has been proved that the vehicle was off the road during the relevant period. THEre is no reason to deny the refund. THE 1st respondent rejected the request for refund by the impugned proceeding dated 20.5.1986. An appeal was preferred before the 2nd respondent which was rejected by the 2nd respondent on 24.9.1986. Further revision to the 3rd respondent was also rejected on 6.4.1987. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) THOUGH the writ petitioner had merely challenged the proceedings of the 1 st respondent and sought for a direction to refund the tax, she has not challenged the proceedings of the respondents 2 and 3. However, on this technical ground, I did not proposes to deny the relief prayed for by the petitioner.;