THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22589 of 2009 Date: 22.10.2009 Smt. D. Vijaya Laxmi. … Petitioner and The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. … Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22589 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) A notice dated 17.09.2009 issued by the respondent under Section 7 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 is assailed in this wit petition. On 11.12.2008, the petitioner’s tractor and trailer bearing registration No. AP 15T 6154 and 6155 respectively were intercepted and found to have no records pertaining to the vehicle; being driven without a driving licence; trailers registration number was not visible; and on verification of the records the vehicles were found to being plied without tax paid after 31.12.2000 i.e., for the period 31.03.2001 to 31.12.2008. A show cause notice dated 22.01.2009 was issued sensitizing the petitioner to the liability for payment of tax and penalty for the intervening period 31.03.2001 to 31.12.2008 in a total amount of Rs.72,640/- of which the tax component is Rs.24,720/- and the penalty Rs.47,920/-. The petitioner was required to explain why the tax and penalty of Rs.72,640/- should not be collected from him. The petitioner asserts to have submitted his objections by her letter dated 27.01.2009 addressed to the respondent. In the said explanation, the petitioner stated that the tractor was not operated from 31.03.2001 to 31.12.2008 on account of domestic and financial problems and that while the vehicle was proceeding for filling air in the tyres it was intercepted and a notice was issued after seizing the vehicle. It was further stated that the driver of the vehicle was having driving licence and with regard to absence of registration number in the trolley, the petitioner contended that due to formation of rust, the paint and registration number was not visible. It was further stated that the driver of the vehicle was having driving licence and the xerox copy of the same would be handed over at the time of release of the vehicle. The petitioner requested that the tax and penalty should be waived. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in not releasing the vehicle, the petitioner filed W.P. No.21 of 2009. This Court directed the respondent to release the vehicle on the petitioner depositing Rs.10,000/- and on filing an undertaking not to alienate the vehicle and to produce it as and when required by the respondent, by the order dated 07.01.2009. The vehicle was released on 22.01.2009. The impugned order was thereupon passed stating that though a notice dated 22.01.2009 was issued calling upon the petitioner to appear, she failed to appear, did not produce the relevant records and therefore the respondent concludes that there was no explanation to offer and the liability has been determined at Rs.64,160/- towards tax and compounding fee excluding the amount of Rs.10,000/- already paid (pursuant to the interim order by this court referred to above). The impugned notice also states that if the petitioner fails to pay the amount stipulated, the property would be attached and necessary action initiated as per the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act & the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned notice on the ground that the petitioner failed to consider the explanation dated 27.01.2009 submitted by the petitioner and proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner failed to appear though called upon to do so, there being no such order requiring appearance. Though the respondent has recorded that the decision is arrived at since the petitioner failed to appear though required to do so, this error in recording the reasons for the conclusion in the notice determining the liability of the petitioner to tax and penalty per se does not vitiate the notice of demand of tax and penalty. Rule 12-A of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1963 enjoins that for the purposes of Section 3 of the Act (A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963), a motor vehicle shall be deemed to be kept for use and is liable to tax unless the registered owner or the person having possession or control of the Motor vehicle intimates in writing to the licensing officer before the 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 and that the licensing officer shall on receipt of such intimation acknowledge its receipt. The provisos to Rule 12-A are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Demonstrably and admittedly as well, the petitioner had not intimated to the respondent in respect of each quarter in advance that the vehicle is not being used. In the circumstances, the petitioner’s liability to tax for the presumptive use of the vehicle cannot be avoided. The demand of the tax component by the impugned notice is therefore impeccable. The penalty component is determined as per the discretion of the respondent. In any event as against an order imposing penalty the petitioner has an appellate remedy before the Transport Commissioner under Section 12 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963. This appellate remedy ought to be pursued and on such appeal being filed, this Court is not in doubt, the Appellate Authority would consider the appeal on merits. On the analysis above, we find no substantive infirmity in the impugned notice warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal in accordance with law against the penalty component mentioned in the impugned notice. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission with the above observations. No order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 22.10.2009 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR/ASP