Bhaskara Janna vs Regional Transport Officer

S.H. Sheth, J.—The Petitioner is the owner of motor car ORG 3605 registered in the State of Orissa. Tax in respect thereof was also paid to Orissa State. It was brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh and when it was checked it was found that it was carrying 200 kilograms of fish. Motor Vehicles Inspector, therefore, reported that the motor car was used as a goods vehicle and was liable to pay tax and duty to which a goods vehicle is subject. The Regional Transport Officer. Srikakulam issued to the Petitioner notice to show cause why he should not be called upon to pay a tax of Rs. 300/- and as additional tax of Rs. 30/- and penalty in terms of the Rules then in force. It is that notice which is challenged by the Petitioner in this petition.

I would not have entertained this petition against a notice to show cause if the proceeding had stopped there for the time being because it is always open to the Petitioner to show cause, tender his explanation and adduce evidence in support of his case and to present it to the Regional Transport Officer. However, Mr. A. Suryanarayana Murthy, who appears on behalf of the Regional Transport Officer has placed before me the file which shows that in pursuance of the impugned notice the Petitioner tendered his explanation. It further shows that the Regional Transport Officer rejected that explanation and made an order demanding from the Petitioner Rs. 300/- as and by way of tax Rs. 30/- as and by way of additional tax and Rs. 660-00 as and by way of penalty. The question, therefore, which is required to be considered is whether the motor car which was carrying 200 kilograms of fish was used in the State of Andhra Pradesh as a transport vehicle. Section 2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, defines ''transport vehicle'' in the following terms : "Transport Vehicle" means a public service vehicle, or a goods vehicle. The expression ''public service vehicle'' is defined in Section 2(25). We are not concerned with it in this case. Section 2(8) defines ''goods vehicle'' in the following terms:

Goods vehicle means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods, solely or in addition to passengers.

The question which has been raised for my consideration is whether the Petitioners motor car which carried goods could be said to be a goods vehicle. Sub-section (7) of Section 2 defines ''goods'' in the following terms:

''goods'' includes live-stock and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage of personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle.

When Sub-section (8) and Sub-section (7) of Section 2 are read together it is very clear that a goods vehicle is one which carries goods not being the luggage or personal effects of the owner of the car or of the passengers travelling by such a vehicle. Therefore, a goods vehicle is one which carries goods as a matter of business or commerce in transport and not luggage or personal effects of its owner or the passengers who are in the car.

The next question which therefore is required to be decided is whether the Petitioner''s car had been carrying at the relevant time 200 kilograms of fish as a matter of business or commerce in transport or otherwise. The Petitioner contended in reply that 200 kilograms of fish which he was carrying was intended of distribution amongst his relatives and that, therefore, the motor vehicle was not used as a goods vehicle. However, the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, shows that the driver of the car as well as those who were in the car stated to him that 200 kilograms of fish which it was carrying was intended for sale. The Regional Transport Officer has accepted that part of the report. It is clear, therefore that the Petitioner had permitted his car to be used for carrying 200 kilograms of fish for being sold in the market. This leads to an irresistible inference that the motor car was allowed to be used as a vehicle for carrying goods as a matter of business or commerce in transport. Mr. Siddappa has argued that the Motor Vehicles Inspector did not record statements of the driver and the persons who were in the car and that, therefore, that part of his report which refers to such statements being made by the driver and the other occupants of the car cannot be accepted. This is a question of fact. It is not open to this Court to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with the acceptance of this fact by the Regional Transport Officer. The large quantity of fish which the vehicle was carrying indicates that fish was carried for being sold in market. It is difficult for me to imagine that such a large quantity of fish was carried for the purpose of distribution to the Petitioner''s relatives. In that view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the order made by the Regional Transport Officer. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150/-.