THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Writ Petition No.36659 of 2014
DATED:02.12.2014 Between:
P. Koteswara Reddy, Hyderabad.
… Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Transport Department, Hyderabad and others.
….Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Writ Petition No.36659 of 2014
Order: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This writ petition has been filed for a declaration that the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle Bolero SLX bearing No. MP 28 ME-0009 on 2.8.2014 is illegal, contrary to law, consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle.
It appears that the petitioner’s vehicle has been registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh. When the vehicle was brought into the State of Andhra Pradesh, the respondents-motor vehicles authorities found that the vehicle is staying more than the prescribed period of 30 days as permissible under law without paying any lifetime tax in this State. On that ground, the vehicle was seized.
We have checked up the law. Over-ruling the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we hold the respondents- motor vehicles authorities have the power to seize the vehicle for realization of the lifetime tax in the event such vehicle, which was registered in different State, is used for more than 30 days in this State. Further, whether the vehicle was used for more than 30 days in the State or not, is a question of fact. On that ground only, the show cause notice has been issued quantifying the provisional amount of life tax. The petitioner is yet to reply to the show cause notice.
Under the circumstances, we do not like to interfere with the show cause notice and action at this stage. However, we give liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed explanation to the show cause notice within a period of three weeks from date. On receipt of the same, the authority concerned, will give a hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with reasons. On the question of release of the vehicle, we think that without securing the alleged demand, it would not be proper to direct the respondent authority to release the vehicle. According to us, the balance of convenience and inconvenience overwhelmingly lies in favour of the revenue, as in the event, ultimately, it is found that the life time tax is to be paid and vehicle is released pending decision, without any appropriate security, it is difficult, if not impossible, to recover the amount from the owner of a vehicle, being a resident of outside State. On the other hand, if any security is furnished and ultimately tax is not required to be paid, then such security can be returned by the respondent. Therefore, we direct the respondent- authorities, in the event the petitioner furnishes the bank guarantee in any nationalized Bank having Branch at Visakhapatnam in the amount of Rs.69,250/- and further furnishes a personal bond binding himself to pay the penalty amount, if levied, the vehicle shall be released forthwith to the petitioner. The decision shall be rendered as aforesaid within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the reply. If no reply is received within that time, it shall be presumed that the demand made by the respondent-authorities is final and the bank guarantee shall be encashed immediately. If it is found upon hearing that the life tax is not payable, then the bank guarantee shall be returned forthwith to the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 2nd December, 2014 Pnb/gbs SANJAY KUMAR, J