Smt. G.R. Vinodhkrishna Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore (South) and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- karnataka land reforms act, 1961.[k.a. no. 10/1962].section 48a: [n.k. patil, j] grant of occupancy rights petitioner, in spite of being given sufficient opportunity, has failed to substantiate his defence land tribunal has proceeded on the basis of relevant clinching material available on its file and registered occupancy rights in favour of deceased tenant represented by respondents - held, there is no illegality. it is not violative of principles of natural justice. further, the writ petition challenging order passed has been filed after a delay of more than 10 years and the delay has not been properly explained. writ petition dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. - it is urged that while the vehicle was garaged, the insurance company had intimated the non-use of the same which was accepted by the regional transport officer concerned on being satisfied that the vehicle was out of use. the liability of the insurance company or its transferee could therefore be avoided only if it was established that the owner had intimated the non-use of the vehicle and satisfied the conditions subject to which the same was accepted. it is true that this court has in rama reddy's case, supra, held that non-parking of the vehicle at the place where it was supposed to remain garaged would not disentitle the owner to the benefit of non-use and that in order to render the owner liable for payment of tax it was necessary to establish actual use of the vehicle, yet in the light of the decision of the supreme court in state of karnataka v gopala krishna shenoy and another, the said view can no longer be held to be good law.order1. the oriental insurance company sold to the petitioner in a public auction, vehicle bearing registration no. cas 1747. there is some confusion about the dates on which the auction took place, but since nothing much turns on that aspect the same need not detain us. what is admitted is that the vehicle in question was taken over by the petitioner on 16-12-1988, although its ownership was transferred in her favour only on 8-5-1990 that too pursuant to a direction issued by this court in a writ petition filed by her; this direction was upheld even by the division bench in appeal.2. the controversy now is whether the petitioner is liable to pay the tax due against the vehicle under the karnataka motor vehicles taxation act for the period 1-11-1988 to 31-10-1989 for which a demand has been raised against her by the regional transport officer, bangalore and upheld in appeal by the deputy commissioner for transport. it is not disputed that for the period commencing 1st december, 1989 onwards the petitioner has paid the tax for securing a change of entries in her favour. the petitioner however disputes her liability to pay the amount of tax demanded for the period mentioned above as according to her the vehicle was during the said period not actually in use. it is urged that while the vehicle was garaged, the insurance company had intimated the non-use of the same which was accepted by the regional transport officer concerned on being satisfied that the vehicle was out of use. this acceptance of the non-use argued mr. shetty ought to continue till 8-5-1990 when the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in favour of the petitioner. the respondents have not found favour with this argument and held that the non-use of the vehicle as intimated by the insurance company would cease on account of the fact that the vehicle had been removed from the place at which it was garaged on 3-11-1988. the removal according to the respondents was in violation of the terms subject to which the non-use was accepted.mr. shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner argued on the authority on a division bench decision of this court in m. ramareddy v regional transport officer, bangalore and another, that once non-use in respect of a vehicle was accepted, the benefit of the same could not be denied simply because the vehicle had not been garaged in the place specified by the petitioner. it is contended that in order to deny the benefit of non-use either to the insurance company or to the petitioner it was incumbent upon the authority to establish that notwithstanding the intimation of non-use of the vehicle, the same had infact been used.3. the liability to pay tax under the act arises in respect of only such vehicles as are worthy of use on the road. explanation to section 3 of the act provides that if the certificate of registration of the vehicle is current, it must be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads. it is not disputed that the registration certificate of the vehicle in question was valid during the relevant period. the liability of the insurance company or its transferee could therefore be avoided only if it was established that the owner had intimated the non-use of the vehicle and satisfied the conditions subject to which the same was accepted. one of the conditions admittedly was that the vehicle should not be removed from the place where it was garaged during the period of non-use. upon violation of the said condition a finding that has been recorded concurrently, the benefit of the exemption of non-use would cease. nothing further in any such situation would require to be proved in order to fasten liability upon the insurance company or the petitioner in whose possession the vehicle is placed pursuant to the sale in her favour. it is true that this court has in rama reddy's case, supra, held that non-parking of the vehicle at the place where it was supposed to remain garaged would not disentitle the owner to the benefit of non-use and that in order to render the owner liable for payment of tax it was necessary to establish actual use of the vehicle, yet in the light of the decision of the supreme court in state of karnataka v gopala krishna shenoy and another, the said view can no longer be held to be good law. the supreme court has in that case specifically repelled thecontention that the transport authority must in order to justify a demand for payment of tax prove that the vehicle was in a fit condition and had been used on road. the following passage from the decision states the true legal position.'if, however, the vehicle had not made use of the roads because it could not be put on the roads due to repairs, even though the certificate of registration was current, the owner or person concerned has to seek for and obtain refund of the tax paid in advance after satisfying the authorities about the truth of his claim. it is not for the transport authorities to justify the demand for tax by proving that the vehicle is in a fit condition and can be put to use on the roads or that it had plied on the roads without payment of tax. it would be absolutely impossible for the state to keep monitoring all the vehicles and prove that each and every registered vehicle is in a fit condition and would be making use of the roads and is therefore liable to pay the tax. for that reason, the state has made the payment of tax compulsory on every registered vehicle and that too in advance and has at the same time provided for the grant of refund of tax whenever the person paying the tax has not made use of the roads by plying the vehicle and substantiates his claim by proper proof. any view to the contrary would defeat the purpose and intent of the taxation act and would also afford scope and opportunity for some of the persons liable to pay the tax to ply the vehicle unlawfully without payment of tax and later on justify their non-payment by setting up a plea that the vehicle was in repair for a continuous period of over a month or the whole of a quarter, half-year or year as they choose to claim'.4. in the light of the above, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to deposit the amount of tax demanded from her and to claim refund of the same under section 7 upon proof of the non-use of the vehicle during the relevant period to the satisfaction of the authority prescribed. reserving liberty for the petitioner to do so, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The Oriental Insurance Company sold to the petitioner in a public auction, vehicle bearing Registration No. CAS 1747. There is some confusion about the dates on which the auction took place, but since nothing much turns on that aspect the same need not detain us. What is admitted is that the vehicle in question was taken over by the petitioner on 16-12-1988, although its ownership was transferred in her favour only on 8-5-1990 that too pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in a writ petition filed by her; This direction was upheld even by the Division Bench in appeal.

2. The controversy now is whether the petitioner is liable to pay the tax due against the vehicle under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for the period 1-11-1988 to 31-10-1989 for which a demand has been raised against her by the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore and upheld in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport. It is not disputed that for the period commencing 1st December, 1989 onwards the petitioner has paid the tax for securing a change of entries in her favour. The petitioner however disputes her liability to pay the amount of tax demanded for the period mentioned above as according to her the vehicle was during the said period not actually in use. It is urged that while the vehicle was garaged, the Insurance Company had intimated the non-use of the same which was accepted by the Regional Transport Officer concerned on being satisfied that the vehicle was out of use. This acceptance of the non-use argued Mr. Shetty ought to continue till 8-5-1990 when the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in favour of the petitioner. The respondents have not found favour with this argument and held that the non-use of the vehicle as intimated by the Insurance Company would cease on account of the fact that the vehicle had been removed from the place at which it was garaged on 3-11-1988. The removal according to the respondents was in violation of the terms subject to which the non-use was accepted.

Mr. Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued on the authority on a Division Bench decision of this Court in M. RamaReddy v Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore and Another, that once non-use in respect of a vehicle was accepted, the benefit of the same could not be denied simply because the vehicle had not been garaged in the place specified by the petitioner. It is contended that in order to deny the benefit of non-use either to the Insurance Company or to the petitioner it was incumbent upon the authority to establish that notwithstanding the intimation of non-use of the vehicle, the same had infact been used.

3. The liability to pay tax under the Act arises in respect of only such vehicles as are worthy of use on the road. Explanation to Section 3 of the Act provides that if the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle is current, it must be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads. It is not disputed that the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question was valid during the relevant period. The liability of the Insurance Company or its transferee could therefore be avoided only if it was established that the owner had intimated the non-use of the vehicle and satisfied the conditions subject to which the same was accepted. One of the conditions admittedly was that the vehicle should not be removed from the place where it was garaged during the period of non-use. Upon violation of the said condition a finding that has been recorded concurrently, the benefit of the exemption of non-use would cease. Nothing further in any such situation would require to be proved in order to fasten liability upon the Insurance Company or the petitioner in whose possession the vehicle is placed pursuant to the sale in her favour. It is true that this Court has in Rama Reddy's case, supra, held that non-parking of the vehicle at the place where it was supposed to remain garaged would not disentitle the owner to the benefit of non-use and that in order to render the owner liable for payment of tax it was necessary to establish actual use of the vehicle, yet in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v Gopala Krishna Shenoy and Another, the said view can no longer be held to be good law. The Supreme Court has in that case specifically repelled thecontention that the Transport Authority must in order to justify a demand for payment of tax prove that the vehicle was in a fit condition and had been used on road. The following passage from the decision states the true legal position.

'If, however, the vehicle had not made use of the roads because it could not be put on the roads due to repairs, even though the Certificate of Registration was current, the owner or person concerned has to seek for and obtain refund of the tax paid in advance after satisfying the authorities about the truth of his claim. It is not for the Transport Authorities to justify the demand for tax by proving that the vehicle is in a fit condition and can be put to use on the roads or that it had plied on the roads without payment of tax. It would be absolutely impossible for the State to keep monitoring all the vehicles and prove that each and every registered vehicle is in a fit condition and would be making use of the roads and is therefore liable to pay the tax. For that reason, the State has made the payment of tax compulsory on every registered vehicle and that too in advance and has at the same time provided for the grant of refund of tax whenever the person paying the tax has not made use of the roads by plying the vehicle and substantiates his claim by proper proof. Any view to the contrary would defeat the purpose and intent of the taxation Act and would also afford scope and opportunity for some of the persons liable to pay the tax to ply the vehicle unlawfully without payment of tax and later on justify their non-payment by setting up a plea that the vehicle was in repair for a continuous period of over a month or the whole of a quarter, half-year or year as they choose to claim'.

4. In the light of the above, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to deposit the amount of tax demanded from her and to claim refund of the same under Section 7 upon proof of the non-use of the vehicle during the relevant period to the satisfaction of the Authority prescribed. Reserving liberty for the petitioner to do so, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.