Dismissed

P.v.Lekshmanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Dec 2018WP(C)/3514/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a tax demand notice regarding a Pajero SUV after an ordinance increased luxury vehicle tax. Court dismissed writ, citing a Division Bench decision that tax liability is determined by the charging provision in the tax act at the time. Petitioner had paid tax in advance knowing the increase date.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is dismissed citing that the issue is res integra as per previous Division Bench decision.

P.v.Lekshmanan Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶4

WP(C).No. 3514 of 2015

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

P.V.LEKSHMANAN

¶7

AGED 50 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, 'UTHARA' NANGANATH PEEDIAKA, TEMPLE GATE-P.O., TELLICHERY, KANNUR-670102.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, TELLICHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670101.

¶12

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SR.GP. SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 3514 of 2015

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Petitioner had purchased a Pajero(SUV) vehicle. The

¶20

temporary certificate of registration for the petitioner's vehicle was granted on 24.10.2014 . At the time of granting temporary registration, the petitioner remitted the requisite tax. Later, the permanent registration for the vehicle was obtained on 14.11.2014. In the meanwhile, the Government had brought out the Motor Vehicle Taxation Ordinance, by which the tax on luxury vehicles, like that of the petitioner, was increased from 15% to 20%. Consequently, the demand as per Ext.P9 was raised, requiring the petitioner to remit the balance tax due as per the newly introduced ordinance.

¶21

The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P9. Challenge has also been raised against the constitutional validity of Ext.P10 ordinance. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner has remitted the tax demanded in compliance of the interim order issued by this Court.

¶22

WP(C).No. 3514 of 2015

¶23

-3-

¶24

A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been pointed out that the issue canvassed by the petitioner is covered against him by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Hilal B V State of Kerala, [ 2012(3) KLT 438]. On a perusal of the said decision, I am convinced that the issue canvassed by the petitioner is no longer res integra. Under identical

¶25

circumstances the Division Bench had held as follows;

¶26

“ There is no provision in the Taxation Act to levy tax during the period a new vehicle is granted temporary registration. So much so, the first registration referred to the 2^nd proviso to Section 3(1) cannot be a temporary registration granted under Section 43 of the Act read with Rule 94 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, but can only be the permanent registration granted under Section 40 of the Act. In this case, what happened is that the date of increase of tax was known to the appellants and therefore they remitted the tax in advance at the time of granting temporary registration, which they were not required to pay at that time. We do not think the payment of tax in advance before regular registration is granted affects the liability for tax which has to be considered with reference to the charging provision of the Taxation Act.”

¶27

WP(C).No. 3514 of 2015

¶28

-4-

¶29

In view of the decision of the Division Bench in Hilal's

¶30

case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

SD/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

SJ 13.12.2018

WP(C).No. 3514 of 2015

¶36

-5-

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 09.11.2014. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT DETAILS ISSUED BY MENON'S MOTORS PVT.LTD DATED 03.11.2014. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALES CERTIFICATE DATED 24.10.2014. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH POLLUTION STANDARDS. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF TAX. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE TAX LICENSE. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.12.2014. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE DATED 13.11.2014.

¶40

SJ 13.12.2018

P.v.Lekshmanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Lekshmanan v. State of Kerala

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

Haran Palaliath Vs Peringottukara Namboothiri

A.G.Raju Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

V. Ravindran Vs the Secretary

Saviour George Vs State of Kerala

Haridasan. K Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Mohanan a Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board