The High Court · 2025

Counsel for ttre Petitioner: SRI G.K. NAZIMUDDIN t., 1- I j!: Gounsel for the Respondents: ASST. GP FOR TRANSPORT The Gourt made the following: ORDER t It :i !,. ! 'i .Yi.,' . ,ii., .iF i:ilir .iit -: : ],.:, ,! $ t. l :: i.. : ,. ..' ,, . ! l. N THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH ORDEB: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2 in demanding the petitioner to pay the arrears of tax of Rs.2,9 L,86Ol- pertaining to his Maxi cab vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-24-TA-8247 from 2OLg to till date in spite of informing about the seizure of vehicle in relation to FIR No.1 L4l2otg on the file of the Yadcharam P.S., Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District and release the same in the month of Januar5r , 2025, subsequent to the disposal of the criminal case in c.c.No.598 0f 2019, dated o9.t2.2024 0n the file of the )il/I Actditional Judiciat Maglstrate of First Class at 2 sr, J W.P.No.Z4GO4 o.f 2O2s Ibrahirnpatnam, Ranga leddy District as iilegal and arbitrerry and requested to direct the respondent No.2 to waive the a,rrears of tax from 2019 to 2024 and permit the petitioner to pay the tax from March ,2n2sonwards. 3. L,:arned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after releasing the vehicle from the police custody, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities to grant permission to the petitioner to run the vehicle. In spite of petitioner not running the vehicle, the respondent authorjties have demanded the petitioner to pay tax from the period June, 2019 to till date of application and the said veleicle was kept in police custody from 14.O6. 2OI9 to January, 2O2S in connection with C.C.No.S9g of 2Ol9 on the file of the XVI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class ar Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District and the said action of the respondent authorities in demanding the petitionr:r for pa5rment of arrears of tax along with penalty from June 2O19 onwards is contrar5z to the orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court in I : I : I T 3 Str, J W.P.No.24604 oJ 2O25 solutions Limited. t). stottB of Andhra Pradesh ^nd oth.ersl o the Deputy Transport commissioner and SRTA, Nalgonda lA3l2o25, dated 25.08.2025 submits that the in R.No. petitioner never approached to the office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Nalgonda by filing ,,,y .pplication .- to 30.og .2025 so far. But filed a writ petition alleging that the respond.ent No.2 i.e., DTC, Nalgonda reluctantly glve anyresponseunlessanduntilpermittedtopaythearrears of ta)r and penalty and obtain the permit. The petitioner has not filed arry intimation to the respondents regarding the fire accident not the seiz'e by tl.e Financer dated |4.o6.2olgaspertheAmendedRulel2AofT.G.M.V. Toration Act, 1989. Further the Transport commissioner, Telangana issued instructions in circula-r Mem o / -- | 20125 SOC OnLine SC 1851 4 Sr, U W.P.No.246O4 o! 2O2S No.1o4'89/R2l2oo3, dated 2g.og.2oo3 that no til( should be levied for the period of immobilizations in accident or seized by the Financiers. Instead of not foflowing: the procedure as laid down in the M.v.Act and Rures, lggg made therein, tl,e petitioner filed writ petition requested to direct the respondent No.2 (DTc, Nalgonda) to issue permit by receiving the ta< pertaining to Maxi cab No.Ap24 TAg24z for the year, 2o2s onward.s and the petitioner is riabre to pay the penalty to an amount of Rs.2, gz,szsl- as per the rules a:rd requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5' After hearing both sides and pemsing the materiar on record, this court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner not paid tax from June, 2org onwards in view of the vehicre of the petitioner was met in fire accident on 14.o6.2019. Thereafter basing on t]'e complaint of the Finance company, the police, Yacharerm has seized the vehicle of the petitioner and registen:d a case in FIR.No.rr4/2o19 under sections 341, 435 of IPC and the said FIR was renumbered as c.c.No.S9g \ \ .i,.. G i 5 Sr, J W.P.No.246O4 of 2O25 of 2019 on the file of XVI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at lbratrimpatnam and the salne w€.s disposed of on 09.12.2024. In view of the disposal of tl.e said Criminal Case, the concerned Police released the vehicle of the petitioner in the month of January 2025.

6. In view of the same, the respondents cannot ask for payment of arrears and also penalty as per the orders of the Honble Supreme Court passed in Tarachand, Logi.stic Solutions Linited o. Strlrr, of Andhta Pradesh and others (Supra-7) and the relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: n46. Motor vehicle tax is compensatory in nature. It has a direct nexus with the end use. The ratiol tevy of motor vehicle ta< is that a person who is using public infrastructure, such as, roads, highways etc., has to pay for such usage. Legislature has consciously used the expression 'public place' in Section 3- [f a motor vehicle is not used in a 'public place' or not kept for use in a'public place' then the person concerned is not deriving benefit from the public infrastructure; therefiore, he should not be burdened with the motor vehicle tax for such period. -.-u. \ \ u "*,, W.P. t{o.246o4 of 2O2s

47. Coming to Rule 12A, we find that there is omission of the expression 'public place' in the said rule. Opening wonls of the said rule are: 'for the purpose of Section 3 of the ,A,ct'. Thus, the purpose of Rule 12A is to give effect to Section 3. It is trite law that a rule cannot traverse beyond the scope and ambit of the parent statute. Rule 12A has to be interpreted in such a way so as to be in syn<: with Section 3. Question is not of the motor vehicle bein g deemed to be kept for use and hence liable to tax. Regrirement of law is that the motor vehicle should be use<l or kept for use in a lublic place'. When admittedly the motor vehicles of the appellant were conlined for use witlin the RINL premises which is a closed area then querstion of the vehicles being used or kept for being used in a 'public place' does not arise. In the ultimate ahalysis, the core of the controversy Iies in interpretation of Sect:ion 3. Rule l2A, as already discussed above, has to be read to give effect to the charging section. Therefore, the words appearing in Rule L2A i.e., .a motor vehicle shall be deemed to be kept for use'has to be read as ,a motor vehicle deemed to be kept for use in a public plar:e'.'

7. In view of the above circumstances and also the order of the Honble Supreme Court, the respondents c€rnnot deman<l for the pa)rment of atrears of penalty for the vehicle of the petitioner in view of the vehicle seized by the &mpetent Police in the year June, 2Ol9 and, released the 7 Sfr.' W.P.No.246O4 of 2025 i same in January, 2025 and the petitioner has to paJr the permit fee from Januar5r 2025 onwards.

8. In view of the above findings, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to waive the ta< along with penalty for the period from 24.06.2019 to

31.L2.2O24 and the petitioner has to pay the permit fee to run the vehicle from 01.0L.2O25 onwards. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY,, .a'1. SD/- M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR . €- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Secretary-, Regional Transport Authority, Nalgon^d_a District, Nalgonda. 3. One CC to SRI G.K. NAZIMUDDIN, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court for the State of Telangana. touTl

5. Two CD Copies BN GJP Atr i I I l i I I /l I I I I I I I i i HIGH COURT DATED:17l/0912025 r=li D WP.No.?.4604 ot THE t o 0 3 Ff I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETIT]ON @ N{ zJ\*