HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.P. No.23971 of 2011 Dated: 30-08-2011 Between: St. Pauls School, rep. by its Correspondent, G.Hepsiba Rani …..Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Transport Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and another …..Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The Demand Notice dated 22-08-2011 issued by the 2nd respondent determining the tax liability of Rs.10,400/-, penalty of Rs.10,400/- and compounding fee of Rs.17,275/- and directing these payments within the stipulated time of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner claimed to have purchased an Omni Bus and took delivery of the vehicle on a temporary registration T/R No. AP 09 UL TR 7662 on 14-06-2011, the registration valid up to 13-07-2011. Admittedly, the petitioner must obtain a permanent registration and permit to ply as an Educational Institution Bus (E.I.B.) and was not authorised to ply or use the vehicle as an EIB without such permanent registration and permit. The vehicle was intercepted on 05-08-2011 at 9.00 A.M. near Ghatkesar and the vehicle check report on even date records the following irregularities. (i) No proof of tax payment for QE 30-09-2011. (ii) Without fitness certificate (iii) Without permit (iv) I/c not produced (v) Vehicle plying without registration. The vehicle was seized under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 read with Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and detained. In Writ Petition No. 22449 of 2011, by the order dated 09-98- 2011, the petitioner was permitted to file an application for release of the vehicle under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) read with Rule 448-B of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. He filed an application and even before its consideration, a Show Cause Notice dated 16-08-2011 was issued by the 2nd respondent determining the tax and penalty liability of Rs.10,400/- each and demanding a compound fee of Rs.17,275/-. After considering his application, the impugned Demand Notice was issued on 22-08-2011 confirming the proposals set out in the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner assails the determination of tax, penalty and the compounding fee on several grounds. As the petitioner has an appellate remedy in respect of the liability determined on the component of tax and penalty, we are not inclined to go into these aspects. With respect to compounding fee, it is the petitioner’s specific case that he never applied for compounding, but the 2nd respondent, nevertheless determined compounding fee of Rs.17,275/-. The learned Government Pleader for Transport states that under Section 200 of the Act, in respect of any offence committed before or after the commencement of the Act punishable inter alia under Section 192 of the Act (pertaining to use of vehicle without registration), either before or after the institution of prosecution, the offence may be compounded. However, in P.Ratnakar Rao v. Government of A.P.[1], the Apex Court clearly declared the principle that no compounding may be ordered unless the alleged offender under the provisions of the Act is agreeable to the offence being compounded. Since the petitioner pleads that he has not agreed for compounding and the respondents have failed to furnish any agreement or acquiescence of the petitioner for compounding of the offences alleged, the compounding fee determined by the 2nd respondent in the impugned Notice cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. With respect to the tax and penalty, determined in the impugned order of the Demand Notice, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the remedies available under the Act. On the aforesaid analysis, while setting aside the impugned Demand Notice dated 22-08-2011 issued by the 2nd respondent insofar as the compounding fee of Rs.17,275/- is concerned, the Demand Notice in respect of the quantum of tax and penalty determined is not interfered with and if these proceedings are to be challenged, the same shall be subject to an appeal to be preferred by the petitioner against the same. The vehicle of the writ petitioner shall be released on condition that the petitioner pays the tax and penalty as determined in the impugned Demand Noticed dated 22-08-2011. The petitioner shall also undertake before the 2nd respondent not to alienate or alter the specifications of the vehicle and produce the same before the 2nd respondent pursuant to any proceedings for prosecution if initiated against him, as and when required to do so. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J 30.08.2011 bcj / tjmr [1] AIR 1996 (SC) 2523