Skip to content


B.M. Venkataramanaian Vs. Inspector of Motor Vehicles and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectOther Taxes
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 12011 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1983Kant271
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 - Sections 11-A
AppellantB.M. Venkataramanaian
Respondentinspector of Motor Vehicles and ors.
Advocates:P.R. Srirangaiah, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....section 2(mm) is not violative of article 14 of the constitution. - 2. the petitioners has averred that he is very poor and he cannot pay the tax in lump sum and that he is the owner-driver of the vehicle in question which is a public carrier.order1. the petitioner is the owner of motor vehicle bearing registration no. myd 2800. he has alleged that the fitness certificate of the vehicle had expired on 30-9-1975. but nevertheless he continued to pay tax till 13-12-1976: that the vehicle was taken for trial after repairs by the driver on 22-2-1980. but the vehicle was seized by the inspector of motor vehicles attached to the office of the 2nd respondent. thereafter, a demand notice had been issued for payment of rs. 20,987.00 being arrears of tax from 1-4-1976 to 31-501980. then the petitioner filed writ petitioner no. 5997/80 in this court and by an interim order made in that petition got the vehicle released. finally the writ petition was rejected and the petitioner was directed to pay the entire tax demanded under the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner is the owner of Motor Vehicle bearing Registration No. MYD 2800. He has alleged that the Fitness Certificate of the vehicle had expired on 30-9-1975. But nevertheless he continued to pay tax till 13-12-1976: that the vehicle was taken for trial after repairs by the driver on 22-2-1980. But the vehicle was seized by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles attached to the office of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, a Demand Notice had been issued for payment of Rs. 20,987.00 being arrears of tax from 1-4-1976 to 31-501980. Then the petitioner filed Writ Petitioner No. 5997/80 in this Court and by an interim order made in that petition got the vehicle released. Finally the writ petition was rejected and the petitioner was directed to pay the entire tax demanded under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Now the 1st respondent on 2-3-1982 has again seized the vehicle in question presumably under Section 11-A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.

2. The petitioners has averred that he is very poor and he cannot pay the tax in lump sum and that he is the owner-driver of the vehicle in question which is a public carrier. In that circumstance he has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to respondents to release the vehicle on the petitioner paying the tax demanded in reasonable instalments.

3. In my opinion this is not a case in which this Court exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution should give any such direction to the respondents. The petitioner is always free to appeal to the 2nd respondent or his superior officer for such a facility. If such an appeal is made the officers concerned will take a realistic view of the matter and may permit the petitioner to pay the arrear of tax due in instalments. With this observation this writ petition is rejected.

4. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //