@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G.C. Bharuka, J.@mdashThe petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.90 (Annexure-C) passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport in an appeal filed u/s 15 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, (''the Taxation Act'' for short). By this order it has been affirmed that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 66,682/- as tax for the period 1.8.1985 to 30.6.1990 as per Item 8(b) of Part-A of the Schedule to the Act.
2. Admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the omnibus bearing No. CAV.489. According to her, she is running a Nursery School under the name of Tiny Twinklers Play Home Nursery'' at J.P.Nagar in Bangalore and the vehicle is used for the purpose of carrying children to the School and to drop them back near their residence. Therefore according to her, the tax can be levied in respect of vehicle only under Item 8(c) of Part-A of the Schedule to the Act.
3. Section 3 of the Taxation Act provides that a tax at the rates specified in Part-A of the Schedule shall be levied on all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question is an omnibus. The rates of tax for omnibus is specified in Item No,8 of Part-A of the Schedule to the Act.
4. The Schedule to the Taxation Act was substituted by Karnataka Act No. 30 of 1985 with effect from 1.8.1985 Item 8 of Part-A of the Schedule read as under :-
_______________________________________________________________________________
Item Quarterly tax
No. Class of Vehicles for vehicles
fitted with
pneumatic tyres
________________________________________________________________________________
8. Omnibus : Rs. P.
(a) Permitted to carry no more than
ten persons (excluding the driver)
for every person which the vehicle Is
permitted to carry 80.00
(b) Permitted to carry eleven persons
or more (excluding the driver)
for every person which the vehicle
is permitted to carry. 200.00
(c) Owned by schools and exclusively
used for conveyance of school
children and staff of such school. 125.00
5. By Karnataka Act No. 8 of 1987 by amending Item 8(b) of Part A of the aforesaid Schedule, the rate of quarterly tax payable in respect of the motor vehicles covered thereunder was enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- with effect from 1.4.1987.
6. By Karnataka Act No. 14 of 1989, Item 8 Part-A of the Schedule of the Act was substituted with effect from 1.4.1989 by the following item:
"8. Omnibuses
(a) Having a floor area not exceeding
8 square metres for every square
metre. 550.00
(b) Having a floor area exceeding 8
square metres and not exceeding
12 square metres for every square
metre. 600.00
(c) Having a floor area exceeding 12
square metres for every square
metre 700.00
(d) (i) Owned by schools and exclusively
used for conveyance of school children
and staff of such school for every
square metre 20.00
(ii) Owned by other Educational
Institutions and exclusively used for
conveyance of students and staff of such
Institutions, for every square metre 80.00"
6. From the above entries, it is clear that in respect of Omnibuses, a power rate of tax would have been claimed either under Clause (c) of Item 8 of Part-A till upto its substitution by Karnataka Act 14 of 1989 or subsequently under Clause (d)(i) of Item 8 of the said Part-A, only if the vehicle was found to be owned by a school.
7. In the present case, admittedly the Omnibus in question was owned by the petitioner and not by the school run or managed by her. Respondents have placed on record a copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle to substantiate the said fact.
8. In the above view of the matter, in my opinion, the appellate authority was rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled for lower rate of tax provided under the Schedule for omnibuses owned by schools. I may notice here that though the appellate authority has said that since the school is not recognised by the State Government, it cannot claim the benefit of lower rate of tax as a school, but this to my mind is obviously an extraneous c''onsideration. But, since in the ultimate analysis based on the statutory provisions noticed above, the said extraneous consideration cannot have any material bearing on the liability of the petitioner, the impugned orders need no interference.
9. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The authorities can proceed to recover the tax due from the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs.
