K. Suryaprakash vs Assistant Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad, South and Others

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—The short question that arises for consideration in these cases is, whether the petitioners can be made liable to pay quarterly motor vehicle tax in respect of a vehicle which is said to have drawn diesel from the Hindusthan Machines Tools Limited (for short "HMT") or other statutory Corporations on specified dates in the quarter. We shall refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 12996 of 1996 which is representative of the facts in other cases.

The first respondent-the Assistant Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad South Zone, Hyderabad, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner indicating the dates on which the vehicle of the petitioner with Registration No.AP.12-T.5054, was supplied diesel from the factory and noting that on verification of the temporary register and DCBs, he came to the conclusion, prima facie, that the vehicle was plied without permit and payment of tax on those dates; the petitioner was asked to explain why the difference of tax for the quarter in question, should not be collected from him. In reply to the show cause notice, he stated that he never operated the said vehicle on the dates mentioned in the notice and that the statements furnished by the HMT authorities have no authenticity. Finding that the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the first respondent demanded tax for the quarter in question by proceedings No.5857/A3/HS/96 dated June 6, 1996. It is the validity of the said and other like demand notices to the petitioners that is assailed in these writ petitions.

In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the contract carriage of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12996 of 1996 No.AP.12/T.5054, is not covered by any permit and that he has been paying tax only on pro-rata basis for obtaining temporary permits under G.O. Ms.No.139, Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR.II1) Department, dated August 22, 1995. It is averred that the details furnished by the HMT factory that the vehicles in question have drawn diesel from the factory on different dates, show that the vehicles were plied on those dates without payment of tax and without any temporary permits. The petitioners were asked to explain as to why they plied the vehicles unauthorisedly and why difference of tax should not be demanded from them. As they failed to give any satisfactory explanation, the impugned demand notices were issued to them.

Mr. K. N. Jwala, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contends that the particulars furnished by HMT are not authenticated and that no enquiry was conducted by the first respondent, therefore, the impugned demands have to be quashed. This contention, on examination of die facts of the cases, is unsustainable. The case of the petitioners is that the contractor, the second respondent, entered into an agreement with HMT., the third respondent, to supply the vehicles for transporting the employees to the factory. For that purpose fuel was to be supplied by the third respondent. For drawing diesel the second respondent furnished list of the vehicles with registration numbers. The petitioners'' vehicles are admittedly included in the said list. It is also the case of the petitioners that the contractor allots dates on which the vehicles of the petitioners should ply and accordingly permits are being obtained by the petitioners on payment of tax under the said G.O. Ms. No.139. However, what is contended is, on the dates mentioned in the impugned demand notices the vehicles of the petitioners did not ply, instead some other vehicles plied, so on those dates there can neither be any permits nor proof of payment of tax in respect of the vehicles in question. If that be so, it was for the petitioners to state as to what vehicles were plied on those dates and also to prove as to where the vehicles in question were on those particular dates. But from the explanation of the petitioners it appears that such a case was not pleaded in reply to the show cause notices. Therefore, the complaint that no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to prove their cases is without substance because there was no purpose for conducting an enquiry if the plea was not taken. Prima facie, in the absence of any material to the contra, we are of the view that on the dates mentioned in the notices the vehicles of the petitioners have drawn diesel from the HMT/ other statutory Corporations. The petitioners could have taken the plea to show that on those dates the vehicles in question were not plied for some reason which was in their exclusive knowledge; further what other vehicles plied on those dates for which diesel was recorded against the vehicles in question, is also a tact which they could have disclosed in their explanations. The first respondent cannot be asked to prove those facts by holding an enquiry. The petitioners have neither taken any plea nor placed any material either before the first respondent or before this Court to show that the vehicles in question were not plied on those dates. Had any such plea been taken by the petitioners, we would have remitted the matter to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh. In the absence of any plea or material, we are satisfied that the impugned demand based on the material furnished by HMT/other Corporations, is neither arbitrary nor illegal.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, relied upon a letter of HMT dated April, 23, 1996, addressed to the second respondent in support of their case. That letter states that a list of contract carriage buses with registration numbers, is given to issue diesel by the HMT Pump on credit and the cost of diesel will be recovered from the bills against each vehicle shown in the list of vehicles furnished by the factory and that even if a substitute vehicle operates, diesel will be issued to the substitute vehicle but only against the registration number of the vehicle shown in the list and that is the practice that is being followed by HMT. From that letter what is clear is that for the purpose of supply of diesel, only the registration numbers of the vehicles furnished by the contractor will be mentioned and the cost of diesel will be charged against those vehicles. The second letter is addressed by the second respondent to the Manager of Transport, HMT requesting to furnish the details of day-wise operation of the vehicles with their registration numbers. That letter is endorsed by the Manager, HMT stating that they are maintaining only route numbers of buses and their arrival timings and they do not maintain the registration numbers of the buses operated daily, therefore, they cannot furnish the registration numbers. It is surprising as to why the contractor should seek this information from the HMT because he was the person who was operating the vehicles on those dates and all the facts relating to substitute vehicles should be within his knowledge. These letters, in our view, do not advance the case of the petitioners. Neither they prove that the vehicles of the petitioners did not operate on the dates in question nor do they show that some other vehicles operated on those dates. Therefore, the first respondent is right in concluding that the vehicles of the petitioners operated on those dates without any valid permit and without payment of tax.

We, therefore, find no merit in these Writ Petitions; they are accordingly dismissed, but, in the circumstances of these cases, we make no order as to costs.