M.R. Abdul Majeed vs The Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Chitradurga and Others

The petitioner was enrolled under the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 under Enrollment Certificate No. 430/1230/3. Tax payable under the Act for the period 1981-82 to 1991 having remained unpaid, the respondents appear to have started proceedings for the recovery of the arrears by the issue of notices-Annexures-D and E to the writ petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the said notices.

The only ground of attack urged in support of the writ petition is that the petitioner''s bus bearing Registration No. MYU 6556 was burnt by a mob at Donehalli on 19th of April, 1982 whereafter he ceased to carry on the transport business and was not therefore liable to pay any tax under the Act. Reliance in support of this submission is placed upon the recommendations made by the District Magistrate, Chitradurga dated 19th of November, 1984 to the Government for grant of an ex gratia loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner to enable him to buy a new bus. Reliance is also placed upon an application said to have been filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of his enrollment, in response whereto the Assistant Professional Tax Officer, Davanagere has by his endorsement dated 28th of July, 1990 informed the petitioner that the enrollment certificate issued to him earlier could be cancelled only if he remitted the arrears amounting to Rs. 1,250/- besides the penalty and interest due on the same. The endorsement also called upon the petitioner to appear before the Officer and to lead evidence in support of his application seeking cancellation of the enrollment certificate. The petitioner, it appears, did not respond to the endorsement and having failed to lead any evidence in support of his claim for cancellation of the enrollment, the same continues to be valid.

No objections have been filed on behalf of the respondents. Government Pleader however points out from the relevant record that as per the application form submitted by the petitioner, he was running four vehicles, three of which were buses and one was a truck. It was urged by him that even assuming that one of the said vehicles had been burnt down by a mob as alleged by the petitioner, yet it could not be said that he had ceased to practice the profession/trade so as to absolve him of his liability to pay tax under the Act. It was argued that the petitioner having failed to get the enrollment cancelled, it was not open to him to question his liability to pay the tax under the Act. There is substance in these submission. The application form seeking enrollment under the Act has given the particulars of four transport vehicles, one of which is a truck and the other three are said to be buses. It is in fact interesting to note that the bus alleged to have been burnt and bearing Registration No. MYU 6556 is not one of the vehicles detailed in the application seeking enrollment. Be that as it may, burning of one of the buses or vehicles owned by the petitioner in the course of a civil disturbance, rioting or the like would not by itself give rise to an inference that he has given up the profession or trade for which he is duly registered under the Act. The least which the petitioner was expected to do was to seek cancellation of his enrollment certificate by satisfactorily proving that he had indeed stopped the trade or given up the profession. This the petitioner admittedly has not done. The certificate of enrollment continues to be valid even today. In the circumstances, the petitioner''s version that he is no longer carrying on the trade cannot be accepted. That apart, whether or not the petitioner is carrying on the trade is a pure and simple question of fact, which he ought to have agitated and proved before the Competent Authority at the appropriate stage. This Court cannot sitting in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction embark upon an enquiry to find out and declare that the petitioner had ceased to be a transporter and therefore was absolved of the liability to pay tax under the Act.

There is no merit in this writ petition, which fails and is accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs.