Allowed

V.M. Abdul Jabbar v. the Additional Registering Authority

Kerala HC11 Nov 2016WP(C)/29123/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order rejecting his application to replace push back seats with ordinary seats in his bus to reduce tax liability. The court held that there was no statutory prohibition preventing the change. Relying on precedent regarding taxpayer options, the High Court set aside the rejection and directed the respondent to permit the seat change and re-assess th

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside, the respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to change the nature of seats and assess tax accordingly within 15 days.

V.M. Abdul Jabbar Vs the Additional Registering… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/20TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 29123 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

V.M. ABDUL JABBAR, S/O MUHAMMED, VAYALAKKADU HOUSE, KARUMALLOOR, N.PARUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶9

RESPONDENT :

¶10

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, NORTH PARUR -683 513

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.M.JASMIN

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

sts

¶14

WP(C).No. 29123 of 2016 (M)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL 42/F 4116

¶18

P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE DATED 21/3/2012 P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE ISSUED BY FORCE MOTORS LTD IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLER MINI BUS (17+D) 300 P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/7/14 P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 29/8/2016

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶25

W.P.(C).No.29123 of 2016

¶26

Dated this, the 11^th day of November, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 and seeking for a direction to the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's request for substitution of existing push back seats with high back seats as originally provided by the manufacturer.

¶29

Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Additional Registering Authority in an application submitted by the petitioner on 27.08.2016.

¶30

The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner's vehicle was registered on 24.03.2012 with registration No.KL-42F-4116 as a contract carriage. It is stated that from 01.04.2014, the contract carriage vehicles were imposed with two type of taxes based on ordinary seats, push back seats and sleeper berth. The vehicle of the petitioner was verified by the Motor Vehicle Inspector who noticed that the petitioner's vehicle was having 12 push back seats and 5 ordinary seats. Accordingly, tax was imposed by making necessary endorsement regarding the nature of seats. The petitioner in order to reduce the tax liability submitted an application for permitting the petitioner to remove push back seats and to use ordinary seats. This came to be rejected in terms of Ext.P5. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that when the tax is being imposed based on the type of seats in a vehicle, there is an option left with the vehicle owners to decide

¶31

W.P.(C).No.29123 of 2016

¶32

¶33

regarding the nature of seats to be used depending upon the tax that he could pay for the said vehicle. It is, therefore, contended that the Regional Transport Officer was not justified in rejecting his application for change of seats.

¶34

Statement has been filed by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent, wherein it is stated that the request of the petitioner is to alter 12 push back seats to ordinary seats. As per the rate of tax for vehicles fitted with push back seats and permitted to carry more than 12 passengers, but not more than 20, it is 750/- for every passenger whereas the tax for ordinary₹ seats with the same capacity is only 530/-.₹

¶35

According to the respondent, the petitioner's idea is to reduce the tax liability which would cause loss to the Revenue and therefore, such change of seats cannot be permitted.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I don't think that this approach of the respondent is justifiable. When there is a difference in tax depending upon the nature of seats that are being used in a vehicle, necessarily it is for the owner of the vehicle to decide whether he should use push back seats or ordinary seats. Even in a vehicle where push back seats are being used and particular tax is being paid, an option is always available for the owner of the vehicle to seek for change of seats in order to pay a lesser amount of tax. There is no statutory prohibition for the same and no provision had

¶37

W.P.(C).No.29123 of 2016

¶38

¶39

been brought to the notice of this Court which would enable the Department to take a different view in the matter.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the honourable Apex Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [(1973) 2 SCC 551] wherein it is held that if there is a choice before the parties of so arranging their matters that in one case they would have to incur liability to pay tax and in the other case the liability to pay tax would not be attracted, they could prefer the latter course.

¶41

I don't find any valid reason by which the Department could refuse a request for change of nature of seats, which would in effect give the petitioner a reduced tax liability.

¶42

In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as under :

¶43

Ext.P5 is set aside.

¶44

The respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to change the nature of seats and on such change being effected, the tax shall be assessed in accordance with the statutory provisions.

¶45

This shall be done within a period of 15 days from the date on which the petitioner presents the vehicle with the changed seats.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶48

V.M. Abdul Jabbar v. the Additional Registering Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M. Abdul Jabbar v. the Additional Registering Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Prabhakar V.S Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Aravindh S.Anand Vs the Medical Council of India

Sri.Kuriakose Sabu Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Hotel Roma Central Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.)

Navajeevan Trust Vs State of Kerala

Manoj.P.S Vs Assistant Executive Engineer