IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.01.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.17533 and 17534 of 2004 and M.P.Nos. 20818 and 20819 of 2004 Saaniya Tours and Travels, rep. By its Proprietor, Syed Aleem Shabeer ... Petitioner vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Salem. ... Respondent Writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent relating to R.No.B1/84514/2002, dated 06.11.2003, relating to the vehicle No. KA-01/A-1452 and Vehicle No. KA-01/C-5177, demanding difference of tax of Rs.19335/- and Rs.19335/- respectively and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Gopalakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent, dated 06.11.2003, in respect of vehicles bearing Registration No.KA-01/A-1452 and No.KA-01/C-5177, demanding Rs.19,335/- as difference of tax and for further orders. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicles bearing Registration No. KA-01/A-1452 and No.KA-01/C-5177, covered by a tourist permit issued by the Karnataka Transport Authority. The petitioner has paid tax at Rs.12,000/- to the State of Tamil Nadu per quarter under the All India Tourist Operators Permit Rules. Subsequently, this Court held that tax should be paid at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per seat per quarter. Based on the solitary check reports dated 23.06.2001 and 22.06.2001 respectively, the respondent issued a demand notice, dated 06.11.2003 to the petitioner, demanding Rs.19,335/- as difference of tax. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petitions. 3. Assailing the impugned order, Mr.N.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned demand notice is violative of the principles of natural justice, as neither a show cause nor personal hearing was given to the petitioner. He further submitted that as per Section 15-A of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, only after issuing a notice to the operator, the concerned authority should conduct an enquiry before arriving at the quantum of escaped assessment, whereas, the respondent based on the solitary check report, has erred in demanding the difference of tax for the entire quarter and even assuming that he is liable to pay tax, the demand can be made only for one week and not for the entire quarter. 4. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. The impugned demand notice of the respondent, dated 06.11.2003, is as follows: "The vehicle KA 01 A 1452 and KA 01 C 5177 covered by the permit under the provisions of Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators) Rules, 1993, was checked by the Motor Vehicles Inspector on 23.06.2001 and 22.06.2001 and certain irregularities were noticed at that time. The tax in respect of this vehicle should have been paid at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per seat per quarter to Tamilnadu. But in view of the stay orders of the High Court at Madras, the tax already paid @ Rs.12000/- per quarter to Tamilnadu was accepted. Subsequently the High Court dismissed all the writ petitions and confirmed the levy of tax @ Rs.1500/- per seat per quarter. Hence the permit holder has to pay the difference of tax Rs.19,335/- as detailed below: Veh NO. Date of Check Period during the O.E plied in T.N. Seat -ing capa- city Rate of Qty. tax Rs. Amt leviable propor tionately Rs. Tax act- ually paid Rs. Diff. Of tax Rs. KA 01 23.06.01 23.6.01 35 + 1 70000 31335 12000 46000 Veh NO. Date of Check Period during the O.E plied in T.N. Seat -ing capa- city Rate of Qty. tax Rs. Amt leviable propor tionately Rs. Tax act- ually paid Rs. Diff. Of tax Rs. A 1452 to 30.6.01 KA 01 C 5177 22.06.01 22.6.01 to 30.6.01 35 + 1 70000 31335 12000 46000 Therefore you are requested to pay the difference of tax due of Rs.19,335/- as detailed above under Section 22 of the T.N.M.V. Taxation Act 1974, within 14 days from the date of receipt of this Memo failing which action will be taken to collect the tax arrears under Revenue Recovery Act." 5. Section 15-A of the Tamil Motor Vehicles Taxation Act deals with recovery of tax which escaped assessment and it reads as follows: "Where for any reason, the whole or any portion of the tax which would have been payable in respect of any motor vehicle under this Act for any period has not been paid, the licensing officer may, at any time, within a period of five years from the expiry of the period to which the tax relates and after issuing a notice to the registered owner or the person having the possession or control of the motor vehicle and making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, direct such owner or other person to pay the whole or any portion of such tax, which has not been paid: Provided that in computing the period of five years for the purposes of this Section, the period or periods, if any, during which the collection of such tax has been stayed by an order of any Court shall be excluded." 6. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.Sharma Transport v. Government of A.P., reported in AIR 2002 SC 322 = 2002 (2) SCC 188, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.6834 to 6939 of 2002 etc., dated 14.03.2002 has upheld the collection of tax at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per seat per quarter to the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the All India Tourist Operators, covered by tourist permit issued by the other State Transport Authorities, have to necessarily pay the difference in tax to the State of Tamil Nadu. The demand of difference of tax cannot be brought within the purview of escaped assessment and it does not require a show cause notice. As the liability has already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, the Tourist operator has to necessarily pay the difference of tax due to the Government. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice is not tenable. Reading of the impugned order makes it clear that the demand is only an implementation of the orders of this Court. Even otherwise, as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, if any vehicle is used or kept for use in the State of Tamil Nadu, at the rate specified for such vehicle in the Schedule, tax has to be paid for every quarter. Therefore, the other contentions raised by the petitioner are not tenable. 7. In view of the above, there is no manifest error or illegality in the demand made by the respondent and therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. mra To The Regional Transport Authority, Salem. W.P.No.17533 and 17534 of 2004 and M.P.Nos. 20818 and 20819 of 2004 LA (CO) kk 12/9