The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a stage carriage operator challenging an assessment of escaped tax. The Court held that Rule 182 does not require the operator to be the owner of the reserve bus, setting aside the order that rejected the petitioner's objection.
The impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2015/6TH SRAVANA, 1937
WP(C).No. 21477 of 2012 (H)
PETITIONER :
------------------
P.J.BABU, AGED 47 YEARS, PONMANKAL HOUSE, THELLAKOM.P.O, ETTUMANNOOR, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK
RESPONDENTS :
----------------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CZ-II, ERNAKULAM. 682 030.
3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R. RANJITH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 21477 of 2012 (H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
bp
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.21477/2012
Dated this the 28th Day of July, 2015
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by a stage carriage operator having more than 7 buses, challenging assessment of escaped tax. The petitioner was given reserve temporary permit as per Ext.P1 for four months from 18/10/2008 onwards. The petitioner was served with a demand notice produced as Ext.P4 demanding an amount of Rs.2,24,100/- towards tax in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-05-Q-3360 for various periods from 19/01/2007 to 31/03/2009 . This vehicle was, in fact, covered by Ext.P1 temporary permit. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the above vehicle is owned by the petitioner. To satisfy the requirement of Rule 182 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, the “Rules), other vehicles have been mentioned in Ext.P1. A few of the vehicles referred in Ext.P1 stand in the names of different persons, who claim to be from within the family of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 before this Court in W.P.(C).No.33696/2011 and this Court directed the Regional Transport Officer to consider the petitioner’s objection regarding escaped assessment. It is thereafter, Ext.P6 order was passed overlooking the
W.P.(C).No.21477/2012
-:2:-
petitioner’s objection. The reason stated for rejection in Ext.P6 is that there is no provision in the Rules to keep a reserve bus, for the vehicles which are owned by different persons even if the operators are from the same family or undertaking as family enterprise also. The petitioner challenged the above order before the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority affirmed the decision of the Regional Transport Officer as seen from Ext.P8. It is stated therein that the benefit of Rule 182 of the Rules can be given only to an operator having seven or more buses in operation. It indicates that only a single entity could claim the above benefit and not plural.
reads as follows:
“182. Reserve bus (Spare bus).- It shall be a condition of every stage carriage permit that an operator having seven or more route buses in operation (including stage carriages operating on temporary permits) shall maintain reserve buses calculated at the rate of one reserve bus for every complete unit of seven route buses.”
W.P.(C).No.21477/2012
-:3:-
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 182 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988 requires the reserve bus to be owned by the same person as the operator.
Whether the impugned order challenging the assessment of escaped tax regarding a reserve bus covered by a temporary permit should be set aside.
P.J.BABU
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM
THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM
THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court