VEERANNA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

Since these four petitions arise out of the same incident regarding the liabilities and to pay tax and the common petitioner for the same felony in respect of tax is concerned, they are disposed of by this common order.

These criminal revision petitions are directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koppal, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 21/2010, 22/2010, 23/2010, 24/2010 that set aside the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge & CJM., Koppal in C.C.Nos.763/2006, 766/2006, 764/2006, 765/2006 dated 18.03.2010 respectively.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

Petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing No.K.A.29/1864, TATA 407 Maxi-cab. He has purchased the said vehicle with the financial assistance of Bagmar Finance Corporation, Chennai and the said vehicle was hyphoticated to the said Bagmar Finance Corporation and the same was entered in the records pertaining to vehicle. As he was unable to pay the loan installments, the Bagmar Finance Corporation, Chennai abruptly the authorized the Star detective and Security Agency, Gadag to cease the vehicle by letter dated 25.10.2002. Accordingly, the vehicle was ceased and taken away by the Star Detective and Security Agency Gadag from that, onwards the petitioner was not having possession of the vehicle nor he was in the control of the said vehicle and he was also not made use of the vehicle. The said fact was taken into notice by the registering authority, in turn they took steps to recover the tax amount due pertaining to the said vehicle and The RTO, Koppal filed the charge sheet against the accused punishable under Section 12(1) of K.M.V.T Act, 1957.

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Section 12(1) of the of K.M.V.T Act, 1957 and he also relied his arguments on two rulings reported in LAWS (KAR) 2004 2 25 of High Court of Karnataka, Motor and General Finance LTD., Bangalore V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Transport, Bangalore, LAW (KAR) 1997 12 5 of High Court of Karnataka, Arif Munewar V/s. Regional Transport Officer,

Jayanagar, Bangalore.

Section 12(1) of K.M.V.T Act, 1957 is as under:

Whoever,--

(a) As a registered owner or otherwise has possession or control of any motor vehicle liable to tax under this Act without having paid the amount of the tax or additional tax due in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of such vehicle; or

(b) Delivers a declaration or additional declaration wherein the particulars required by or under this Act to be therein set forth are not fully and truly stated;

Shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to the quarterly tax payable in respect of such vehicle and which may extend to a sum equal to the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle; and in the event of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under this section with fine which shall not be less than a sum equal to the tax payable in respect of such vehicle for two quarters and which may extend to a sum equal to twice the annual tax payable in respect of such vehicle; and the amount of any tax due shall be recoverable as if it were a fine.

Learned HCGP oppose the petition by submits that, liability rested on the petitioner to pay the tax, if the vehicle is in suitable condition for use on the road. The said presumption is statutory presumption and can be rebutted only U/R 34, 34A of KMVT Rules 1957. In the present case, neither RC was cancelled nor exemption was sought. Hence, the accused is liable to pay tax as per Section 3 of the Act.

I am of the opinion that, it is the duty of the RC owner to maintain the vehicle and if the same is not in running condition and the same is seized by the any authority, to inform the concerned. It is the basic rule that, risk falls to ownership thus, in that contingency or equality or annexed liability is that, any property that includes vehicle, as well as the owner will be liable to pay tax. Therefore, I disagree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, Section 12(1) of K.M.V.T Act, 1957 provides for liability or a person in possession of the vehicle.

The Section commence with the liability of the owner. Thus, it is a basic equation that, registered owner is liable to pay the tax. As the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle as on the due date, the petitioner is liable to pay the tax due. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 (1) R/W 401 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.