IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 11060 of 1999 Between: P. Mallesham S/o. Sri P. Chandraiah R/o Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Licencing Officer, Karimnagar, O/o the Regional Transport Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 The Asst. Motor Vehicles Inspector, Flying squad, Warangal Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, by calling for the records from the file of the Ist respondent in his demand notice R.No. 14490/A2/98 and quash his demand notice dated. 15.5.1999 demanding a sum of Rs. 20,520/- as difference of tax from the petitioner in respect of his bus A.P.16/U.4142 for the quarter ending 31.12.1998 made therein and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No. 11060 of 1999 Oral Order: (Per: GR, J) The petitioner’s stage carriage bus bearing registration No. AP.16/U.4142 was stopped and checked on 28-11-1998 and found plying on an unauthorized route in deviation of the permit. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated 15-05-1999 was issued demanding the difference tax payable i.e., an amount of Rs.20,520-00, assailing which the writ petition is filed. It is fairly stated by the learned Government Pleader for Transport that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Kanapala Rama Rao v. Regional Transport Officer, Srikakulam1 and affirmed by a Larger Bench Judgment of this Court reported in L. Royal Reddy and others v. Government of A.P.2, the notice of demand calling upon the petitioner to pay the difference of tax is not sustainable. In the light of the submissions and in the light of the judgments of this Court supra, the impugned demand notice is quashed. On 14-06-1999 interim stay was granted by this Court on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the balance of disputed tax within four weeks. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the conditional interim order above, the petitioner has deposited the 50% of the balance of disputed tax. If that be so, in view of the quashing of the impugned demand notice, the petitioner shall be entitled to refund of the amount deposited. The respondent shall refund the deposited amount to the petitioner within a period of two weeks on his making an application for refund of the deposit. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J Dated: 29-12-2008 Pvks 1 2001 (6) ALD 402 (FB) 2 2004 (2) ALD 225 (LB)