IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4948 OF 2025 Between: Penumolu Satya Chandrababu, S/o. Ramachadnra Murthy, aged about 42 years, Flat.No.508, The Landmark Apartments, Rayalam (V),Bhimavaram (M) West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by it's Principal Secretary, Transport Dept, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Transport Officer, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram. 3. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Authority/ (RTA)AP137, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that action of the 2"^ Respondent in issuing Impugned demand notice vide R.NO.390/A3/2024, Dt.08.01.2025 (served on 17.01.2025) without considering explanation Dt,03.12.2024, directed the Petitioner to pay tax of Rs.3,36,420/- and penalty of Rs.2,82,660/- on the invoice of Rs.'25,87,800/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice failing which action will be taken as per the rules Is illegal, arbitrary and violative of sec 41, 46, 47 r/w rule 54 of the M.V.Act,1988 and without giving the opportunity of being heard, also violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g), 21, 246 (2), 248(2) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same consequently to suspend the vide R.NO.390/A3/2024, oast- operation of impugned demand notice Dt.08.01.2025 issued by the 2 ' Respondent to assign new registration mark to the Petitioners vehicle following sec 47 of MVAct, 1988 r/w rule 54 of Central Motor Vehicles rules 1989, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. rd nd Respondent, also direct the 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned demand notice vide R.NO.330/A3/2024, Dt.08.01.2025 issued by the 2^^ Respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to directed the 3'"^ Respondent to assign new registration mark to vehicle following sec 47 of MVAct, 1988 r/w rule 54 of the Petitioners Central Motor Vehicles rules 1989, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, otherwise violates Petitioners personal liberty protected under Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. K. DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010092572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4948/2025 Between: Penumolu Satya Chandrababu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andha Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KKDURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following ORDER: Impugning the demand notice issued by respondent No.2 vide V RC.390/A3/2024 dated 08.01.2025, directing the petitioner to pay a tax of Rs.3,36,420/- and penalty of Rs.2,82,660/- on the invoice of Rs.25,87,800/-, the above writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner purchased a second-hand car bearing No.WB06G2300 for a valuable consideration, on 05.07.2021. The petitioner’s vendor, in turn, purchased the subject vehicle from the registered owner on 27.04.2021 in West Bengal and obtained NOC dated 30.04.2021, from the West Bengal Transport Department. While the petitioner was proceeding with business work, respondent No.3 stopped the subject vehicle and the petitioner showed ...RESPONDENT(S) SRS,J W.P.No.4948of 2025 ^ all the documents. Respondent No.3, not satisfied with the documentary proof, seized the vehicle and directed the petitioner to Rs.5,47,581/-. pay a road tax of b) Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25645 of 2024 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 12.11.2024, directing respondent No.2 therein (respondent No.3 herein), to release the subject vehicle immediately and to issue show cause notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation, regarding payment of road tax. The Court further directed petitioner to submit an explanation and thereafter directed the the authority to pass appropriate orders. c) In pursuance of the said order, show R.NO.390/A3/2024 dated 15.11.2024 cause notice vide was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 29.11.2024. The petitioner also made a represenfation dated 29.11.2024, for change of AP State marking. d) Respondent No.2 vide proceedings impugned without considering the petitioner’s explanation, demanded the petitioner to of Rs.3,36,420/- and penalty of Rs.2,82,600/- on the invoice of Rs.25,87,500/- within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petition is filed. pay a tax 3. Heard Sri K.K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Y. Balaji, learned Government Pleader for Transport, for the respondents. 4. The main contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.2-authority failed to consider the petitioner’s explanation, dated 29.11.2024. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Transport that the petitioner failed to pay life tax as mandated under Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963. and Sri petitioner is that per contra, would submit SRS,J W.P.No.4948 of 2025 The point for consideration is whether the demand notice, impugned, is legally sustainable.? 6. Shorn of the details, when the subject vehicle was seized, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25645 of 2024 and the same was disposed of on 12.11.2024. In pursuance of the said order, a show cause notice dated 15.11.2024 was issued and the petitioner submitted an explanation on 29.11.2024. 7. In the notice impugned, the petitioner’s explanation dated 29.11.2024 is cited as the fourth reference. Despite referring to the explanation, the authority failed to consider any of the objections raised by the petitioner. No reasons were assigned in the demand notice. 8. Time and again the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, has been reiterating that reasons are the heart and soul of the order passed by an administrative authority, as the reasons would reflect the consideration by the authority to the pleadings and the material available on record. In M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others' the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers; 9. 10. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota vs. M/S.Shukla & Brothers^ the Hon’ble Apex Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of the justice delivery system, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at the admission stage or after a regular hearing. 11. In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jai^ the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 12. (2010)9 500 496 ^ (2010)4 500 785 ’(2008) 15 500 711 SRS,J W.P.No.4948of 2025 13. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, the demand notice impugned is bereft of reasons and also suffers from the vice of non-consideration of explanation. The demand notice impugned is liable to be set aside. 14. Given the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed at the admission stage. The demand notice issued by respondent No.2, vide Rc.390/A3/2024 dated 08.01.2025 is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2. The learned respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned order, considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner under Ex.P6 to the notice Ex.P5, and pass a reasoned order, within three weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.2 shall also consider the petitioner’s request for a change of A.P. State Marking, as per the Rules. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTTDN OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary Transport Dept, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Transport Officer, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram. 3. The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Authority/ (RTA)AP137, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 4. One CC to Sri K. K. Durga Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Transport, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three CD Copies. [OUT] ssb HIGH COURT DATED:03/03/2025 t 2 I MAR 2025 % ^ Current Secxion ORDER WP.No.4948 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS