Dismissed

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2014WP(C)/1559/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a declaration refraining respondents from levying one time tax on four construction vehicles. The court held that the prayer was not liable to be entertained as the matter was open to remedy via the procedural position admitted by the third respondent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the prayer for declaration and injunction against tax collection was dismissed.

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/30TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 1559 of 2014 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD., KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT (KC02) REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, PROJECT ACCOUNTANT C.S.PRADEEP, L & T LTD., KMR PROJECT, SIVAPURNIMA HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KAKKANAD, KOCHI REGION, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

¶13

4. STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 1559 of 2014 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.TN 01 AR 4486 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT BY RTO, KAKKANAD.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.TN 20 BR 0725 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT BY RTO, KAKKANAD.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.TN 20 BR 0137 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT BY RTO, KAKKANAD.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.TN 01 AR 2137 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT BY RTO, KAKKANAD.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(C)No.1559 of 2014

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2014

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

¶36

“a) Declare that the respondents cannot insist for payment of One Time Tax, as contemplated under Annexure -1 to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act to the vehicles covered by Exhibits P1 to P4 Certificate of Registration;

¶37

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to refrain from collecting One Time Tax as contemplated under Annexure-1 to the vehicles covered by Exhibits P1 to P4 Certificate of Registration;”

¶38

The prayers sought for by the petitioner is sought

¶39

to be resisted from the part of the respondents by filing a detailed counter affidavit by the third respondent; relevant portion of which is extracted below:

¶40

“2) It is submitted that an identical issue is pending before this Hon'ble court in WP(C) 31727/2013 filed by one Harminder Singh. It is respectfully submitted that, no application from the petitioner firm, for the registration of Mobile Cranes was received in this office. As per Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1976 and Finance bill 2010, 6% (six percent) tax on the purchase value has to be paid as onetime road tax in the case of vehicles to be used as Construction Equipments. This is applicable to vehicles registered in other states after

¶41

W.P.(C)No.1559 of 2014

¶42

-2-

¶43

01/04/2010 and subsequently brought to the state of Kerala.

¶44

1. As per the provisions of Finance bill 2010, the Construction Equipment Vehicles registered in another state and brought to the State of Kerala has to pay tax @ 6% on the purchase value, from the date of obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Original Registering Authority. As per the Exhibits produced, 4 (four) vehicles are brought to the State of Kerala: the details are as below:

¶45

i) TN 01 AR 2137 date of reg. 08/02/2012. NOC date 17/10/2013 ii) TN 01 AR 4486 ” 08/03/2012 ” 06/11/2013 iii) TN 20 BR 0725 ” 13/10/2010 ” 11/11/2013 iv) TN 20 BR 137 ” 07/10/2010 ” 20/12/2013

¶46

Tax @ 6% (six percent) on the purchase value is due from the date of NOC is due subject to such reduction as stated in the table annexed with finance bill 2010.

¶47

1. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the vehicles are supposed to be used in the state for a limited period of 3 (three) years and if onetime tax is paid they have to suffer huge losses. In this connection it may be noted that:

¶48

i) There is no provision for payment of onetime tax on a compartmental basis.

¶49

ii) Only proportionate tax is levied for the old vehicles. (that is; if the vehicle is October 2010 model, there is 20% discount)

¶50

iii) The registered owners are entitled to refund of tax in the event of removal of vehicle to other states. Refund is allowed on applications submitted, along with proof of registering at another State, within a period of one year from obtaining NOC from this state.

¶51

iv) Road tax is a state subject and is compensatory in nature. So there is no issue of double taxation. In the circumstances, the grounds raised by the petitioner are not sustainable and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and hence the Writ Petition may be dismissed with cost.”

¶52

W.P.(C)No.1559 of 2014

¶53

-3-

¶54

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the relief sought for by the petitioner is not liable to be entertained by this Court. It is open for the petitioner to pursue the course in terms of the position as pointed out by the third respondent.

¶55

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶58

shg/

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

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

Afsal.K.H Vs the South Indian Bank Ltd.

Vilakkudy Grama Panchayat Vs M.Geevarghese

Vimal Chittilappally Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Prasanth Vs the Authorised Officer

T.B Swamidasan Vs Kerala Water Authority

Ajumma Vs Chief Manager, Federal Bank