Dismissed

Subair v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC7 Feb 2012WP(C)/1539/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that reclassifying a vehicle to contract carriage attracts a higher tax liability. Since the additional tax was not paid by the previous owner or petitioner, the Department was legally justified in refusing to transfer ownership, review the permit, or conduct a fitness test. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer to require change of entries and conduct fitness test without paying arrears was rejected; writ petition dismissed.

Subair Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/18TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 1539 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------SUBAIR, S/O.SULAIMAN, OSSARAVEETTIL HOUSE, KOTTATHARA, ESWARAMANGALAM, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 577.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PONNAI P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 577.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PONNAI P.O.,

¶12

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 577.

¶13

3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

WPC.NO.1539/2012 N

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE AND THE REPORT OF TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP DATED 27/10/2011 ISSUED TO THE REGISTERING AUTHRORITY.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE AND THE REPORT OF TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP DATED 27/10/2011 ISSUED TO THE REGISTERING AUTHRORITY.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE TAX LICENSE ISSUED TO THE VEHICLE ON 09/1/2008.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATES OF FITNESS ISSUED TO THE VEHICLE.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CHANGE OF ENTRIES IN THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE REGARDING TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.

¶26

EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPTS OF THE FEES PAID BY THE PETITIONER.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶32

--------------------------------------------------

¶33

W.P.(C) NO.1539 OF 2012(N)

¶34

--------------------------------------------------

¶35

Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2012

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Prayer sought in this writ petition is to require the respondent to change the entries in the registration certificate regarding transfer of ownership of the vehicle of the petitioner bearing reregistration No. KL-54-7253 and conduct fitness test without insisting on the payment of any arrears of tax. Petitioner also seeks a declaration that no amount is due from the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid vehicle either as arrears of tax or as difference of tax.

¶38

Facts of the case are that according to the petitioner he purchased a second hand vehicle bearing registration No.KL-754-7253. It is stated that previous owner of the vehicle had registered the same as a private service vehicle for personal use and that one time tax of Rs.40,440/- was paid. Subsequently with effect from 22.11.2008, the permit of the vehicle was altered as a contract carriage with ten seats. On purchase of the vehicle

¶39

WPC.No. 1539/2012

¶40

:2 :

¶41

petitioner made application for change of entries in the registration certificate and also applied for renewal of the permit and issue of fresh fitness certificate. At that stage he was informed that tax of Rs.37,560/- is in arrears and should be paid along with late fee of Rs.3000/-. This was informed to be the differential tax payable consequent on alteration of the permit of the vehicle into a contract carriage. According to the petitioner he is not liable to pay arrears of tax or differential tax and the case pleaded by him in paragraph 5 and 6 of the writ petition reads as under;

¶42

“ It is submitted that a one time tax of Rs.40440/being 8% of the purchase value of the vehicle as per Entry 5 of Annexure-1 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, was paid at the time of registration of the vehicle as a private service vehicle for personal use on 9.1.2008 and which was for a period of 15 years. After 10 months of use on 22.11.2008 the permit of the vehicle was altered as a contract carriage with 10 seats. For such permit the tax payable is Rs.310/-per passenger per quarter. So the quarterly tax for the vehicle of the petitioner will be Rs.3100/which will come to Rs.12400/- an year. It is submitted that the tax payable for a private service vehicle for personal use with not more

¶43

WPC.No. 1539/2012

¶44

:3 :

¶45

than 10 seats is Rs.80/- per seated passenger other than driver per quarter as per Entry 6a of Schedule-1 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. So the annual tax will be Rs.2880/(80x9x4). It is submitted that as the balance amount of Rs.37560/-(40440-2880) after deducting the tax for usage of the vehicle for 1 year as private service vehicle was in the credit of the Motor Vehicles Department, such amount was adjusted by the department towards the tax due on the vehicle of the petitioner for the last 3 years at the contract carriage tax rate, which will come to Rs.37200/-(12400x3).

¶46

So the petitioner is not liable to pay any arrears of tax or difference of tax at Contract Carriage tax rate. The demand made by the respondents 1 & 2 for payment of tax arrears or difference of tax at Contract Carriage tax rate is not sustainable. The respondents refusing to change the entries in the registration certificate regarding transfer of ownership and also refusing to conduct the fitness test of the vehicle of the petitioner, demanding payment of difference in tax is arbitrary and illegal.”

¶47

A statement has been filed by the first respondent. It is stated that the registered owner of the vehicle is one Abdul Majeed and the vehicle was registered as a light motor private service vehicle for personal use. It is stated that one time tax in

¶48

WPC.No. 1539/2012

¶49

:4 :

¶50

respect of the vehicle at the rate of 6% of the value of the vehicle was paid by the registered owner on 9.1.2008. It is stated that the registered owner applied for reclassification of the vehicle as a contract carriage and that accordingly on 22.11.2008, the the vehicle was reclassified as a contract carriage with tax liability at the rate of Rs.2780/-(310x9) per quarter as per entry 7 of the schedule to the Act. According to the respondents tax in respect of the vehicle as private service vehicle was Rs.673/- per quarter and that as a contract carriage tax payable is Rs.2790/-. It is contended that in view of Section 7 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act the differential tax is liable to be paid as additional tax with effect from November, 2008 onwards when the vehicle was reclassified. It is stated that since this liability was not paid the respondent did not effect change in the RC or review the permit or conduct any fitness test.

¶51

Admittedly, there is a change in the classification of the vehicle, which attracted higher liability for tax. As already stated

¶52

WPC.No. 1539/2012

¶53

:5 :

¶54

as a private service vehicle the liability was only Rs.673/- per quarter and as a contract carriage quarterly tax payable is Rs.2790/- and the vehicle was reclassified with effect from November, 2008. Therefore if vehicle is reclassified, it is not possible for the registered owner to seek adjustment of the tax already paid for any period and on the other hand the statutory liability of the registered owner is to pay additional tax from the time the vehicle has been reclassified. Admittedly that additional tax liability has not been discharged either by the previous owner or by the petitioner. In such circumstances I am not in a position to agree with the petitioner that the respondents have committed any illegality in the matter. Therefore I see nothing warranting interference.

¶55

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶56

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶57

vi/

¶58

WPC.No. 1539/2012

¶59

:6 :

Subair v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subair v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Gangadharan Vs M/S.Darsana Auto Finance

Shyla Mohan Vs the Debt Recovery Tribunal

Abdul Salam.P.K. Vs State of Kerala

V.P.Ninish Vs Transport Commissioner

John J. Vs Union Bank of India

Thressia Antony Vs the Intelligence Officer