AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Abdul Nazeer
M/s Sriram Transport Finance (for short ''Financier'') has filed W.P. Nos. 34345 to 34369/2011 challenging the endorsement at Annexure ''R'' dated 30.8.2011 issued by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore Rural Division, Bangalore, whereby the appeal filed by the Financier challenging the order at Annexure ''M'' dated 21.4.2011 passed by the Regional Transport Officer and Taxation Authority. Kolar, was rejected on the ground of delay.
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short ''the Corporation'') has filed W.P. Nos. 41335-41339/2011 & 41340-41344/2011 and 40737-40741/2011 & 40742-40746/2011 challenging the judgment passed by the appellate authority in tax appeal No. 3/2011-2012 dated 4.7.2011 and tax appeal No. 1/2011-2012 dated 4.7.2011 dismissing the appeals filed by the Corporation on the ground that the Corporation has not produced proof for having paid the taxes as per the notification No. TRD.196/SAEPA/2008 dated 26.10.2010.
Sri P.S. Rajagopal. learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Financier submits that the proceedings challenging the order of the taxation authority was pending before this Court either in writ petitions or in writ appeals. this Court had directed the petitioner to file the appeals before the appropriate authority. That is how the appeals came to be filed before the appellate authority at a belated stage. Due to a bonafide mistake, the petitioner could not file the appeals in time. It was under the impression that since writ petitions were pending before the Court, it was not necessary for them to file the application seeking condonation of delay. He further submits that the Financier will file necessary application seeking condonation of delay before the appellate authority and that the appellate authority may be directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.
Sri S.V. Krishnaswamy, Learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that without noticing the amendment made to Section 15 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1957 (''Act'' for short) by Act No. 7/2010, which has come into force with effect from 30.3.2010, the appeals were filed by the Corporation. It is submitted that the Corporation ought to have filed an application under proviso to Section 15(2)(b) read with Rule 31-A(2)(b) as amended by notification dated 26.10.2010 which enables the Corporation to file an application seeking relaxation from depositing the disputed taxes. He submits that the Corporation may be permitted to file such an application since the entire tax amount is disputed.
The submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Financier appears to be just and reasonable. It is clear from the materials on record that the order of the Taxation Authority was challenged before this Court and the matters were pending for quite some time. After the disposal of the said cases, the petitioner filed the appeals before the Deputy Commissioner for Transport. It did not make an application seeking condonation of delay on the impression that it need not file such an application as the matter was pending before this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and reasonable to grant the petitioner time to file an application seeking condonation of delay.
Similarly, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Corporation also requires to be accepted. Section 15 of the Act as also Rule 31-A, which are relevant for the purpose of these cases were amended by Act No. 7/2010 with effect from 30.3.2010. In the circumstances, the Corporation ought to have made an application seeking relaxation from depositing the disputed tax. The Financier is also at liberty to make necessary application seeking relaxation as provided under proviso to Section 15(2)(b) of the Act.
7 In the light of the aforesaid discussions, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) W.P. Nos. 34345-34369/2011 are hereby allowed and the endorsement at Annexure ''R'' dated 30.8.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore Rural Division.
Bangalore, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore Rural Division, Bangalore, for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner is permitted to make an application seeking condonation of delay in tiling the appeal. It is also permitted to make an application under proviso to Section 15(2)(b) of the Act. If such applications are filed, the taxation authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law.
(ii) W.P. Nos. 41335-41339/2011 & 41340-41344/2011 and W.P. Nos. 40737-40741/2011 & 41742-40746/2011 are also allowed and the judgments at Annexure ''C'' dated 4.7.2011 (in W.P. Nos. 41335-41339/2011 & 41340-41344/2011 and in W.P. Nos. 40737-40741/2011 & 41742-40746/2011) are quashed. The matters are remitted hack to the appellate authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Corporation is permitted to make necessary application before the appellate authority under proviso to Section 15(2)(b) of the Act. If such an application is filed, the authority concerned is directed to consider the same in accordance with law.
(iii) All the contentions are kept open. No costs.