S.P. SWAMINATHAN Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER-FOR TRANSPORTS AND SECRETARY, KSTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge who has declined to set aside the endorsement issued by the authorities demanding tax for the whole year to be paid at one lump sum. The appellant is the holder of an All India Tourist Omni Bus Permit issued under Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 issued by the State Transport Authority, Nagaland, Kohima passing through the states of Assam, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry. The permits are valid upto 26.02.2018. Authorization has been issued in accordance with Rule -83 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 upto 26.02.2014 and the authorisation fee is for one year. The appellant approached the respondent for acceptance of tax under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (for short 'the Act). He wanted to pay tax quarterly. The respondent issued an endorsement dated 07.05.2003 to pay the tax under Section 3(1) of the Act, for the entire period of authorization instead of quarterly tax. Against the said endorsement, the appellant preferred writ petition before this Court. Learned single Judge was of the view that when the authorization is for one year period, the tax has to be paid for one year at once and not quarterly, as requested by the appellant and therefore, he dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court.

(2.) SRI B.R. Sundara Raja Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned order of the learned single Judge as well as the endorsement issued by the authorities contended that though the interstate permit is issued under the Central Act and the authorization has been issued under the Central Rules, the tax payable is under the Act. Section 3 is the charging section. Tax is payable under Section 3(1) of the Act. However, Section 4 of the Act gives an option to the owner of the bus to pay the tax quarterly, half yearly or yearly. Therefore, the authorities were not justified in rejecting the request of the appellant for payment of tax quarterly. Therefore, he submits that the case for interference is made out.

(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid facts, the point that arise for our consideration is that: In the case of interstate permit, when the permit holder undertakes to pay the tax directly to the concerned State Transport Authority, at the time of entry in its jurisdiction, the said payment of tax could be made as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act that is, quarterly or half yearly.