THE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.33691 of 1997 ORDER: (Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) The order of first respondent Joint Transport Commissioner & Secretary dated 01.09.1997, confirming the order of the second respondent Assistant Secretary (Licensing Officer) dated 22.05.1997 demanding Rs.29,160/- towards tax for the quarter ending 30.06.1997 in addition to penalty of Rs.43,750/- in respect of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP 13T 5555 is under challenge in this writ petition and a writ of certiorari is sought to quash both the aforesaid orders. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is the owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration no.AP 13T 5555. He submitted an application dated 27.02.1997 in respect of non-use of the said vehicle, to the second respondent informing him that he would not be plying the vehicle from 28.02.1997 onwards and that the vehicle was kept at a particular address at Hyderabad. The second respondent is said to have verified the fact of stoppage of the vehicle on 08.03.1997. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application on 11.03.1997 seeking permission to shift the vehicle to another place and the second respondent, by order dated 12.03.1997, is said to have granted permission. The petitioner filed W.P.No.10236 of 1997 and, pursuant to the interim orders of this Court dated 06.05.1997, the second respondent was directed to accept the tax and issue tax token for the quarter ending 30.06.1997. The second respondent issued show cause notice dated 02.05.1997 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why tax of Rs.2,500/- per seat for the quarter ending 30.06.1997, along with a nominal penalty of 50% of the tax, should not be collected from him for plying the vehicle after filing stoppage report with an intention to defraud the Government. The petitioner was informed that a surprise check was conducted on 24/25.04.1997 at Kothuru Check Post near Vijayawada, that the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Vijayawada had reported that vehicle bearing No.AP 13T 5555 had passed the check post at Kothuru and, since the vehicle was not present at the place of stoppage and was parked elsewhere, it was evident that the vehicle was put to use by the petitioner clandestinely with an intention to evade the tax due to the Government. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 14.05.1997. The second respondent issued demand notice dated 22.05.1997 levying tax of Rs.29,166/- and penalty of Rs.43,750/- for the quarter ending 30.06.1997. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent who, by order dated 01.09.1997, dismissed the appeal confirming the demand issued by the second respondent. This Court, by order in W.P.M.P.No.39634 of 1997 dated 19.12.1997, granted interim stay of penalty subject to the condition that the petitioner deposited the balance tax of Rs.29,000/- within 3 weeks. The petitioner claims to have complied with the interim orders passed by this Court. Sri B.Sivaramakrishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute the allegation regarding the vehicle having been put to use even though it was under stoppage. He would, however, submit that, even assuming that the allegations were true, all that the respondents could do was to direct the petitioner to pay the tax due. He would submit that, since the petitioner had paid the tax due for the quarter ending 30.06.1997 well within time, no penalty could have been imposed. According to the learned counsel, penalty can only be imposed for non-payment of tax within the stipulated period and, since the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.96, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr-II), dated 21.05.1993 permitting tax to be paid within one month from the date of commencement of the quarter and had thereafter issued another notification granting further grace period of ten days, the petitioner was liable to pay the tax due, for the quarter ending 30.06.1997, only by 10.05.1997 and, as the tax was paid on 06.05.1997 well within time, no penalty could have been imposed. Learned counsel would point out that the respondents, in their counter affidavit, had not controverted the fact that the Government had prescribed a further grace period of ten days beyond the 30 days grace period prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.96, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr-II), dated 21.05.1993 but had merely contended that the grace period stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.96 was not available to such of those vehicles which, though under stoppage, had been clandestinely put to use. Learned counsel would submit that G.O.Ms.No.96, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr-II), dated 21.05.1993 made no distinction between vehicles under stoppage and vehicles which were regularly put to use and that the petitioner was also entitled to the benefit of the extended grace period of ten days, beyond the period of 30 days prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 21.05.1993. Learned counsel would request this Court to quash the order of the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent at least to the extent penalty of Rs.43,750/- was imposed on the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Transport would seek to sustain the impugned orders. He would submit that this Court ought not to show any indulgence to the petitioner who had surreptitiously put the vehicle to use even though he had intimated the department that the vehicle was under stoppage. He would submit that, since tax was paid only on 06.05.1997, the respondent authorities had rightly imposed penalty of Rs.43,750/- on the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963, and the Rules made thereunder. Section 3 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (A.P Act No.5 of 1963) relates to levy of tax on motor vehicles and under sub-section (1) thereof the Government may, by notification, from time to time, direct that a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in a public place. Under Section 4(1) (a) of A.P. Act No.5 of 1963, the tax levied under the Act shall be paid in advance and in the manner specified in Section 11, by the registered owner of the vehicle, either quarterly, half-yearly or annually on a licence to be taken out by him for that quarter, half- year or year, within fifteen days from the commencement of the quarter, half-year or year. Under Section 6 a penalty is prescribed for failure to pay tax and, if the tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid as specified in Section 4, the registered owner is, in addition to payment of the tax due, liable to pay a penalty which may extend to twice the quarterly tax in respect of that vehicle. Section 9 relates to exemption, reduction or other modification of tax. Section 11 prescribes the manner of payment of dues under the Act and provides that payment of every amount due under the Act shall be made by production, before the licensing officer, of a demand draft obtained from any scheduled bank to the value for which payment is required or in such manner as may be prescribed. Under Rule 12 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963, if the tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid as specified in Section 4 of the Act, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay the arrears of tax from the date of expiry of the period for which tax was already paid, together with any penalty that may be imposed by the licensing officer. Under Rule 12-A, for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act, a motor vehicle shall be deemed to be kept for use and is liable to tax unless the registered owner intimates in writing to the licensing officer, before commencement of the quarter for which tax is due, that the motor vehicle shall not be used after expiry of the period for which tax has already been paid. The licensing officer shall, on receipt of the intimation, acknowledge its receipt. Rule 13 prescribes the rates of penalty as under:-- TABLE PERIOD AMOUNT OF PENALTY 1 Within one month from the beginning of the quarter, half year or year, as the case may be Not exceeding one half of the quarterly tax 2 Within two months from the beginning of the quarter, half year or year, as the case may be Not exceeding the amount of quarterly tax 3 For over two months from the beginning of the quarter, half year or year, as the case may be Not exceeding twice the quarterly tax 4 For each calendar month or part thereof in respect of motor vehicles for which life time or lump sum is prescribed Not exceeding 2% of the life time or lump sum tax for calendar month or part thereof subject to a maximum of twice the life time or lump sum tax due In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (A.P. Act No.5 of 1963), G.O.Ms.No.96, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr-II), dated 21.05.1993 was issued whereby it was ordered that no penalty shall be levied, under Section 6 of the Act, if the motor vehicle tax due under Section 4 of the Act in respect of all motor vehicles is paid on or before the end of the first month of every quarter. The petitioner had paid tax for the quarter ending 31.03.1997 before submitting his application seeking permission for stoppage of the vehicle and, since the vehicle was found to have been surreptitiously put to use later, he was held liable to pay tax for the quarter ending 30.06.1997. In view of the exemption granted under G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 21.05.1993 the petitioner was entitled to pay tax for the quarter ending 30.06.1997 within one month from the commencement of the quarter i.e. on or before 30.04.1997. The petitioner, admittedly, paid the tax for the quarter ending 30.06.1997 only on 06.05.1997, beyond the grace period prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 21.05.1993. No Government Order granting further relaxation of time for payment of tax has been placed on record. While Sri B.Sivaramakrishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the respondents had not disputed this fact in the counter affidavit it needs no emphasis that the burden lies on the petitioner to establish before this Court that the Government had issued a notification granting further grace period of 10 days, beyond the 30 days grace period prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 21.05.1993, in which event alone can the petitioner be said to have paid tax within time. Since no such exemption order issued by the Government, granting further grace period beyond the grace period prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 21.05.1993, has been placed on record, it must be held that the petitioner had paid the tax due beyond the stipulated period and the respondents were, therefore, justified in levying penalty under Section 6 of A.P. Act No.5 of 1963 read with Rules 12, 12-A and 13 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963. The tax liable to be paid by the petitioner for the quarter ending 30.06.1997 was Rs.87,500/- and penalty, of half of the quarterly tax, was imposed on the petitioner in accordance with Rule 13 of the Taxation Rules. The impugned demand notice directing payment of penalty cannot, therefore, be faulted. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not exercise its discretion to interfere except in larger public interest. A writ of mandamus and a writ of certiorari are discretionary unlike a writ of Habeas Corpus which can be sought as a matter of right. One of the principles inherent is that the exercise of discretionary power should be for the sake of justice and, if quashing the order results in greater harm to the society, then the Court may refrain from exercising the power. (State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu[1]). The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised in every case where there is an error of law. In the name of correcting errors of law, Courts ought not to bring forth a situation which would result in injustice and, if justice became the by- product of an erroneous view of law, Courts are not expected to erase it in the name of correcting errors of law. (Roshan Deen Vs. Preetilal[2]). One of the limitations imposed by this Court, on itself, is that it would not allow itself to be turned into a court of appeal to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice. (Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah[3]). Even if a legal flaw might be electronically detected, this Court would not interfere save manifest injustice. (Rashpal Malhotra Vs. Mrs. Satya Rajput[4]; Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Vs. K.G.S.Bhatt[5]). It is evident from the demand notice dated 22.05.1997 that, while the petitioner had sought permission to stop usage of the vehicle and had thereby avoided payment of tax for the quarter ending 30.06.1997, he had surreptitiously used the vehicle on the night of 24/25.04.1997 and, on his being caught in the process, he was directed to pay both the tax due and penalty. But for the authorities having detected the fact that he had surreptitiously put the vehicle to use the petitioner would have avoided payment of tax for the quarter ending 30.06.1997 despite having put the vehicle to use. A person who has violated the law cannot, as a matter of right, claim that the Court should exercise its discretion in his favour. Such persons do not deserve any indulgence or sympathy and this Court would be loathe to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant them relief. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondents. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances without costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:24--06-2009 CVRK [1] (1994) 2 SCC 481 [2] (2002) 1 SCC 100 [3] AIR 1955 SC 425 [4] AIR 1987 SC 2235 [5] AIR 1989 SC 1972