HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5727 OF 2000 DATED:16.9.2014 Between:
Mohammad Ghouse Pasha … Petitioner And The Assistant Secretary R.T.A., Hyderabad South Zone Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5727 OF 2000 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings in Memo No.3482/A1/HS/1998, dt.7.3.2000, by which the petitioner’s vehicle in question was seized and the respondent authority demanded payment of tax for the quarter ending 30th September, 1998. The total demand is about Rs.13,962/-. Apart from non- payment of tax, other reasons were mentioned, namely, non- production of registration certificate and insurance certificate. We are not on the other questions, as the vehicle has already been released by an order of this Court, and said vehicle, in terms of the order of this Court, was allowed to be sold to a third party. Now only tax due is in question.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the aforesaid quarter the vehicle was not used and as such under the law writ petitioner has no obligation to pay the tax due and demanded.
From the writ petition, we have noticed that intimation of non- use of the vehicles was given after the quarter ending. The relevant Rule, namely Rule 12A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963, obligated the vehicle owner or the person having possession or control of the motor vehicle to intimate in writing before the quarter starts about non-use of the vehicle. The letter addressed by the petitioner to the respondent in this regard as shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of dated 12.11.1999. Therefore, this is not the legal requirement as mentioned hereinabove.
We therefore hold that the action taken for the recovery of the tax and penalty is quite justified. In terms of the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner has already paid Rs.5,000/- and also Rs.8,962/-. In view of the payment, we think that no order need be passed in this matter and we close the writ petition without passing any order.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 16.9.2014 bnr