THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.11923 of 2009 Dated:27.07.2010 Between: MVSR Engineering College. …Petitioner and The Deputy Transport Commissioner & secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ranga Reddy District at Attapur, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.11923 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a Technology Education Institution situated at Nadergul, Badangpet. They own a bus bearing No.MH01L 7426. The bus is used for transporting students and staff from residence to College and back. The petitioner allegedly engaged the services of M/s.Ashoka Travels for maintenance, and entered into the contract. The same stipulates that the maintenance contractor shall provide the fuel, the running staff and also bear the maintenance/repair expenditure for a consideration of Rs.45,000/- per month. The petitioner also obtained the necessary permission under Section 2(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), as Education Institution Bus (EIB), attracting a nominal contractual tax of Rs.2120/- per quarter as per Government notification vide G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 13.04.2006, issued under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963. The Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector (AMVI) checked the bus on 19.08.2008, and as per the check report the bus was allegedly given on contract to Ashoka Travels. The AMVI enquired with one Srinivas, System Administrative Officer of the College, and Sri Khathal Khan, driver of the bus in the employment of Ashoka Travels. Based on the check report the second respondent issued the show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the quarterly tax of Rs.1207.50 per seat per quarter should not be levied, and the balance of the Motor Vehicle tax should not be collected from the petitioner. The petitioner then submitted explanation on 01.12.2008, inter alia, contending that the bus was on Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) with Ashoka Travels and that the same is not registered as Contract Carriage as per Section 2(7) of the Act. Rejecting the plea, the second respondent issued demand notice dated 08.12.2008 confirming the show cause levy of Rs.1,67,520/-. Though the Act does not provide for any appeal, the petitioner filed a petition before the first respondent, inter alia, contending that the bus was on AMC with Ashoka Travels and that the same was used as EIB for transporting students and staff. On considering the same, the first respondent passed the impugned order on 15.05.2009 observing as under. The appeal filed by the registered owner has been examined with reference to the provisions stipulated under Section-2 of the MV Act, 1988. As could be seen from the records, the vehicle No.MH01 L7426 is registered as a Educational Institution Bus. But it is not covered by any permit as on date. The vehicle was checked by the MVI for plying without permit in violation of the provisions stipulated under Section-66 of the MV Act, 1988. Further, it is established on record that the appellant has undertaken a contract with M/s.Ashoka Travels for transportation of employees/students of the college on hire. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant has been operating the vehicle on contract basis. However, since the vehicle is owned by M/s.MVSR Engg College and registered as Educational Institution Bus though not covered by permit, I am of the view that the issue needs to be dealt fairly to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, it is ordered that the vehicle owner shall pay the tax for the Q.Es 31-3-2008 and 30-06-2008 @ Rs.397/- per seat per quarter as applicable to an Omni Bus and shall pay tax for QE 30-09-2008 @ Rs.1208/- per seat per quarter as applicable to a contract carriage during the quarter of check. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The impugned order which treats the petitioner’s bus as omni bus and demands the quarterly tax at Rs.397/- per seat per quarter is assailed in the writ petition. At the stage of admission itself as directed, the second respondent filed counter affidavit justifying the demand, and for doing so he placed reliance on the statements allegedly given by the students and the System Administrative Officer. The matter was initially heard by us on 20.07.2010. As there is a serious contention with regard to the AMC, we directed the Counsel for the petitioner to produce before us the agreement of the College with Ashoka Travels. Today, the agreement dated 01.07.2008 and the certificate of Deduction of Tax at Source in Form No.16A (under Rule 31 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962) by the College to Ashoka Travels have been placed before us. These, prima facie, sustain the argument that the bus was not a contract carriage, that the same was being used as EIB and that the same was given for the purpose of AMC to Ashoka Travels. Indeed, as rightly pointed out by the Counsel such a ground was taken in the appeal petition before the first respondent, but, it appears, the same has not been adverted to at all. This only shows that there is no proper application of mind by the authority while imposing tax. Such a course cannot stand for scrutiny of the Court. We feel that the matter should be considered afresh by the first respondent keeping in view the two documents placed before us referred to hereinabove. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. We remand the matter to the first respondent with a direction to consider the matter afresh keeping in view the observations made hereinabove within a period of eight weeks. If any amount is paid by the petitioner pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, the same shall abide by the final orders of the first respondent. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 27.07.2010 vs