Katyanamma Vs. Deputy Commissioner for Transport - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
karnataka motor vehicles taxation act, 1957 (karnataka act no. 35 of 1957) - section 8-a-scope - proceeding to recover deficit tax, only after issue of prior notice and opportunity of being heard; else, proceeding taken, invalid.;section 8a requires the taxing authority initiating a proceeding to recover deficit tax payable respecting a motor vehicle from its owner or the person in possession or control of it, to do so only after issue of a prior notice to such owner or person in the matter and after affording him an opportunity of being heard thereupon. therefore, any proceeding taken against the owner of a motor vehicle or the person in possession or control of it for recovery of alleged deficit tax payable respecting such vehicle under the act without complying with the prior conditions relating to notice and hearing specified in section 8a, renders it invalid. - code of civil procedure, 1908. section 148: [a.s. pachhapuri, j] enlargement of time - suit for specific performance of contract - decretal of suit subject to deposit of the balance sale consideration within one month from the date of decree - confirmed in appeal - failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount as ordered in the suit - miscellaneous application requesting extension of time to deposit the amount - rejection of challenge as to held, as could be seen from the provisions of section 148 c.p.c., the question regarding the extension of time arises in case if any time is fixed or granted by the court for doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the code. so, as regards the applicability of this provision, it is relevant to note that the extension of time is only when the period is prescribed or allowed by the civil procedure code. therefore, the provisions of section 148 cpc do not apply to the facts on hand. on facts, held, trial court has taken consideration of these facts and circumstances and rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in seeking the extension of time. hence, the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. - 4. the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the demand notice (annexure-a), by which the petitioner was called upon to make good the deficit tax payable respecting her vehicle under the act, was unsustainable since the same had been issued to her without affording an opportunity of being heard in the matter as required under section 8-a of the act.ordervenkatachala, j.1. by consent of learned counsel, this petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and i have heard them.2. if the amount of tax paid for a period in respect of a motor vehicle falls short of the tax payable under the karnataka motor vehicles taxation act, 1957 (for short 'the act'), can such deficit be recovered by the taxing authority from the owner of such motor vehicle or the person having possession or control of it, without giving him a prior notice in the matter and an opportunity of being heard thereon, is the short point which arises for decision in this writ petition3. the petitioner is the registered owner of a motor vehicle with registration no. cta 6555, a stage carriage. she received from the taxation authority (respondent-2) a notice dated 26-9-1986 (annexure-a) by which she was asked to pay rs. 11,500-00, the amount of tax fallen short of the tax payable for her vehicle under the act. she preferred an appeal against that notice before the appellate taxation authority (respondent-1), which dismissed the appeal by its order dated 27-5-1987 (annexure-b). she received from respondent-1 another notice dated 8-6-1987 (annexure-c), by which the demand of tax made earlier was reiterated. it is the said notices and the appellate order which are impugned in this petition.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the demand notice (annexure-a), by which the petitioner was called upon to make good the deficit tax payable respecting her vehicle under the act, was unsustainable since the same had been issued to her without affording an opportunity of being heard in the matter as required under section 8-a of the act. this contention merits acceptance.5. section 8-a of the act in so far as it is material, reads; which upholds that demand notice, and the notice (annexure-d) issued pursuant to the appellate order, consequently become unsustainable and have to be quashed, as rightly urged on behalf of the petitioner.7. in the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand notice (annexure-a), the appellate order (annexure-c) and another notice (annexure-d) are quashed.8. however, it is made clear that the quashing of the demand notices issued to the petitioner and the appellate order made respecting the demand notice, does not come in the way of the taxing authority instituting deficit tax recovery proceeding against the petitioner by complying with the requirements relating to prior notice and hearing prescribed under section 8-a of the act and the petitioner resisting such proceeding by raising such objections, as may be available to her in law.

Judgment:
ORDER

Venkatachala, J.

1. By consent of learned Counsel, this petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and I have heard them.

2. If the amount of tax paid for a period in respect of a motor vehicle falls short of the tax payable under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'), can such deficit be recovered by the taxing authority from the owner of such motor vehicle or the person having possession or control of it, without giving him a prior notice in the matter and an opportunity of being heard thereon, is the short point which arises for decision in this Writ Petition

3. The petitioner is the registered owner of a motor vehicle with Registration No. CTA 6555, a stage carriage. She received from the Taxation Authority (respondent-2) a notice dated 26-9-1986 (Annexure-A) by which she was asked to pay Rs. 11,500-00, the amount of tax fallen short of the tax payable for her vehicle under the Act. She preferred an appeal against that notice before the appellate taxation authority (respondent-1), which dismissed the appeal by its order dated 27-5-1987 (Annexure-B). She received from respondent-1 another notice dated 8-6-1987 (Annexure-C), by which the demand of tax made earlier was reiterated. It is the said notices and the appellate order which are impugned in this petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the demand notice (Annexure-A), by which the petitioner was called upon to make good the deficit tax payable respecting her vehicle under the Act, was unsustainable since the same had been issued to her without affording an opportunity of being heard in the matter as required under Section 8-A of the Act. This contention merits acceptance.

5. Section 8-A of the Act in so far as it is material, reads; which upholds that demand notice, and the notice (Annexure-D) issued pursuant to the appellate order, consequently become unsustainable and have to be quashed, as rightly urged on behalf of the petitioner.

7. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned demand notice (Annexure-A), the appellate order (Annexure-C) and another notice (Annexure-D) are quashed.

8. However, it is made clear that the quashing of the demand notices issued to the petitioner and the appellate order made respecting the demand notice, does not come in the way of the taxing authority instituting deficit tax recovery proceeding against the petitioner by complying with the requirements relating to prior notice and hearing prescribed under Section 8-A of the Act and the petitioner resisting such proceeding by raising such objections, as may be available to her in law.