Allowed

P.Koshy John v. Addl.Registering Authority,Ottappalam

Kerala HC14 Sept 2012WP(C)/9211/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged tax liability for a vehicle purchased in Kerala but registered later in 1999. Bench held unregistered vehicle cannot be said to be kept for use in State. Petitioner absolved from pre-registration tax liability. Order Ext.P3 quashed.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order dated 1.10.03 rejecting representation on tax demand was quashed; petitioner absolved from tax liability for period prior to vehicle registration.

P.Koshy John Vs Addl.Registering Authority,Ottappalam — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/23RD BHADRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 9211 of 2007 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.KOSHY JOHN, AGED 46, PATTOMTHANATHU HOUSE, CHITHIRAPURAM P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE ADDL.REGISTERING AUTHORITY, OTTAPPALAM.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE-II, TRICHUR.

¶12

3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PA.REZIYA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

tss

¶16

W.P.(C) NO.9211/2007

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT.D 4.2.98. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 21.12.2002. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 1.10.03.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.9211 of 2007

¶27

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶30

Government Pleader.

¶31

During July, 1997, petitioner purchased a 1982 Model Premier Padmini Car, which was registered in the State of Maharashtra. The vehicle was brought to the State and on 14.10.1997, petitioner made an application for transfer and fresh registration. That was rejected by Ext.P1 order dated 04.02.1998 on the ground that the registration of the vehicle had already expired on 05.01.1997. Subsequently, the vehicle was registered on 14.05.1999 and registration mark was also issued.

¶32

Petitioner thereafter approached the authorities for payment of tax due under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976.

¶33

Thereupon, tax for the period from July, 1997, was demanded after giving him the exemption as admissible as per

¶34

W.P.(C).No.9211/2007

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

SRO 878/1975. Thereupon, petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation to the third respondent, which was also rejected by Ext.P3. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed.

¶37

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicle was registered only on 14.05.1999 and that by Ext.P1 order, the first respondent had prevented the petitioner from using the vehicle in the State. Therefore, the vehicle is not liable for tax for the period prior to its registration in the State. On the other hand, respondents contend that the delay in the registration had occurred on account of the fault of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner, who is liable to pay tax cannot be absolved of the liability for any period subsequent to July, 1997, when the vehicle was bought to the State of Kerala.

¶38

I have considered the submissions made. The liability of a motor vehicle to pay tax is under Section 3 of the Act. The relevant portion of Section 3(1) of the Act read as under:

¶39

“Subject to the provisions of this Act, on and from the date of commencement of this Act,

¶40

W.P.(C).No.9211/2007

¶41

: 3 :

¶42

a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State, at the rate specified for such vehicle in the Schedule.”

¶43

Reading of this provision shows that to be liable to pay

¶44

tax, the vehicle should be used or kept for use in the State. Admittedly, registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, is a condition precedent for use of the vehicle in the State. The vehicle did not have a registration till 14.05.1999. Only if a vehicle is registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, can it be said that it used or kept for use in the State. That apart, by Ext.P1 order, petitioner was also prevented from using the vehicle without registration and the authorities have no case that violating this order, the vehicle was used. In such circumstances, in my view, petitioner could not have been made liable for tax in respect of the vehicle for any period prior to its registration.

¶45

Therefore, I quash Ext.P3 and this writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.

¶46

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶47

P.Koshy John v. Addl.Registering Authority,Ottappalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Koshy John v. Addl.Registering Authority,Ottappalam

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

Athira Mohan Vs Salomi

Ramakrishnan Vs P.P.Pramod

M/S.Prabhu Steels Vs the Thrikkakara Municipality

Vijayamma Pillai Vs E.Noorudeen Kunju

Aswini Hospital Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Intelligence Officer

M/S.Koldy Roller Flour Mills (India) (P) Ltd. Vs State Bank of Travancore