Dismissed

Balaram v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC22 Jan 2024WP(C)/241/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed two writ petitions filed to quash tax demand notices. Relying on a final judgment under appeal which denied benefits under the One Time Settlement Scheme due to alleged fraud, the Court found no substance in the current petitions where the petitioners had only deposited 40% of the demanded tax.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as the petitioner was not entitled to the One Time Settlement Scheme benefit and had only deposited 40% of the tax.

Balaram Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 2ND MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 241 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BALARAM,
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. KUNJIKRISHNAN NAIR,
KOTTARAPPAD, ENKAKKAD, WADAKKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680582.

¶8

BY ADVS.
 SRI. G. HARIHARAN
 SRI. PRAVEEN H.
 SMT. K. S. SMITHA
 SMT. B. R. SINDU
 SRI. V. R. SANJEEV KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680582.

¶11

2 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014.

¶12

3STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶13

BY ADV.
 SMT. JASMINE M. M. - GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.01.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 366 OF 2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶16

PRESENT

¶17

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶18

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 2ND MAGHA, 1945

¶19

WP(C) NO. 366 OF 2024

¶20

PETITIONER:

¶21

NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. ANANTHARAMAN,
PULIKKOTT MADAM, WADAKKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680582.

¶22

BY ADVS.
 SRI. G. HARIHARAN
 SRI. PRAVEEN H.
 SMT. K. S. SMITHA
 SMT. B. R. SINDU
 SRI. V. R. SANJEEV KUMAR

¶23

RESPONDENTS:

¶24

1 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680582.

¶25

2 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014.

¶26

3STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶27

BY ADV.
 SMT. JASMINE M. M. - GP

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.01.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 241 OF 2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WP(C) NOS. 241 & 366 OF 2024

¶30

¶31

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) Nos. 241 & 366 of 2024

¶33

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2024

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

These writ petitions have been filed quashing of Exhibit P-4 demand notices issued on 13.10.2023 by the 1^st respondent relating to vehicle Nos. KL-13F-901 and KL-05M-3356 respectively.

¶36

This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. Petitioner had approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No. 20572 of 2015 (V). This Court specifically held that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under the One Time Settlement Scheme published successively, one in the year 2015 and in 2016. Under the Scheme, a person would be entitled to one time settlement who had committed default for the five years has to pay the defaulted amount in installments. However, this Scheme would not be available to persons who played fraud with the Department and, there was an attempt to evade tax actually due as per the statute. It was also held that what was demanded by the Department from the petitioner was an additional tax payable, which the petitioner attempted to evade on the purported reduction of seating capacity. In view thereof, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners were directed to pay the

¶37

WP(C) NOS. 241 & 366 OF 2024

¶38

¶39

amount in three equal monthly installments starting from 13.03.2017. The petitioners thereafter filed writ appeal impugning the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, the Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 577 of 2017) came to be dismissed/closed as infructuous by the Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2023.

¶40

Thus, once the writ appeal got dismissed/closed as infructuous, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge become final. The petitioner was granted three installments for depositing the tax demanded. The petitioner has deposited only 40%. As it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme, I find no substance in these writ petitions and, therefore, same is hereby dismissed.

¶41

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶42

Svn

¶43

WP(C) NOS. 241 & 366 OF 2024

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 241/2024

¶46

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶47

`EXHIBIT`	`P1` `A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE` `OF VEHICLE NO.KL-13F-901 ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2` `A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER MADE IN` `W.P.(C) NO.20572/2015 ON 08.07.2015 BY THE` `PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3` `A TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE` `DATED 18.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-13F-901`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4` `A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED` `13.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN` `THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS` `ENGLISH TRANSLATION`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5` `A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN` `W.A.NO.577/2017 DATED 06.06.2023`

¶48

WP(C) NOS. 241 & 366 OF 2024

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 366/2024

¶51

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶52

`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE` `OF VEHICLE NO.KL-05M-3356 ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER MADE IN W.P.` `(C).NO.20572/2015 ON 08.07.2015`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED` `27.12.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH` `EVIDENCE FOR RECEIPT OF FEES OF RS.10/- ON` `23.12.2016`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED` `13.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN` `THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS` `ENGLISH TRANSLATION`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN` `W.A.NO.577/2017 DATED 06.06.2023`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED` `23.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S` `OFFICE EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL RC` `OF VEHICLE NO.KL-05M-3356`

Balaram v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaram v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Kerala Electricals & Allied Engineering Co.Ltd., Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Ramesh P. Vs the State of Kerala

Nirmala Trust, Vs the Additional/Joint/Vdeputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Narayanaswamy. Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Padmajan Vs the Authorised Officer/Chief Manager

Davis P J., Vs Union of India