Abdul Nazar K.K v. Government of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/6TH ASHADHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 14594 of 2012 (Y) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS:** ## **----------------** **ABDUL NAZAR K.K, PEARL GARDENS, CHANDIROOR P.O.,CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 547.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (TR) SRI.T.P.SAJAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** ## **-----------------** **1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** - **MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** **2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRANSPORT BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **3. ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY (JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER) SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 524.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 14594 of 2012 (Y)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** - **EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PLATINO CLASSIC MOTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.** - **EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX LICENSE DTD.11.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION.** - **EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD.18.11.2011 IN WPC NO.30738/2011.** - **EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.21.3.2012 IN WPC NO.30738/2011.** - **EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD.31.3.2012.** - **EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.04.04.2012.** - **EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.7.4.2012.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TOJUDGE.** **dlk** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c) No. 14594 OF 2012** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27[th] day of June , 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : _i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P8 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ,_ _ii) To declare that petitioner has remitted the entire Motor Vehicle Tax in respect of Vehicle No.KL-32 D 1000 on 11.11.2011 itself as evidenced by Ext.P2_ _iii) Issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3[rd] respondent authority to Register the petitioners LMV Motor car with Registration Number KL-32 D 1000 without insisting for payment of balance tax_ _iv) To issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction, as this Honourable Court deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case._ 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the vehicle purchased by the petitioner much prior to the present financial WPC.No.14594/2012 2 year is refused to be registered, insisting for payment of one time tax at the revised rate, which was brought into force with effect from 01/04/2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no lapse or failure on the part of the petitioner, since the application of the petitioner who wanted to have a 'fancy number' in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act/Rules, particularly Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, was not properly dealt with by the concerned respondents and that the question of law came to be finally declared by this Court only as per judgment in W.A.No.1490/2011 and connected cases. It is also stated that the petitioner had already satisfied the tax at the prevailing rate at the time of obtaining temporary registration, which was on 11/11/11 and as such, the liability of the petitioner ought to have been considered and decided, with reference to the law which prevailed as on the said date and not on the date of passing the order by the concerned authority deciding to grant permanent registration. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that, the issue, particularly, as to the rights and WPC.No.14594/2012 3 liberties of the persons similarly situated had came up for consideration before this Court earlier in W.P.(C)No.8154/2012. After considering the submissions advanced by either side, a detailed judgment was passed by this Court on 10/04/2012 holding the position in favour of the revenue. The learned Government Pleader submits that, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment. On going through the judgment as aforesaid, the specific case projected by the petitioner before the Court as reflected from paragraph 4 and 10 is given below : _4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that, the rate of tax leviable on a vehicle is what is prevailing on the date of it's purchase and not what is prevailing as on the date of inspection or registration and this argument was raised relying on the observations in the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in_ _**Anas v. State of Kerala (1999 (3) KLT 147)** . Therefore, according to him, any later revision of tax, can have no application to his vehicle. It was also argued that the petitioner having paid the motor vehicle tax due on 27.03.2012 and presented the vehicle for inspection and registration on 29.03.2012, in the absence of any other applicant for_ WPC.No.14594/2012 4 _the registration mark applied for by him, the vehicle should have been registered prior to 01.04.2012. It was argued that registration was denied with the sole motive of levying enhanced tax, and that the same is illegal and violative of the Constitutional provisions._ _10. As already noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, it was contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the tax due was already remitted on 27.03.2012 and the vehicle was presented for inspection and registration on 29.03.2012. According to him, the rate of tax applicable is that prevailing on the date of purchase of the vehicle and since it was already paid, the vehicle should have been registered either on 29[th] itself or at any date before 01.04.2012. It was also his argument that tax is payable at the time of first registration and that the vehicle was first registered when temporary registration was granted by Ext.P3 on 26.03.2012._ 4. After considering the factual legal position and also referring to the binding judicial precedents on the relevant aspects, the Court arrived at a finding, as reflected from paragraph 18 and 19 in the following terms : WPC.No.14594/2012 5 _18. These provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules show that registration granted under these provisions is purely temporary and it is valid only for a period not exceeding one month and is not even renewable. Such temporary registration or the allotment of registration mark does not have the attributes of the registration of a motor vehicle, as contemplated under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Therefore it is idle to contend that temporary registration obtained under Section 43 of the Act should be treated as first registration as referred to in Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, to be immune to revision of tax implemented later._ _19. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is nothing illegal in Ext.P9 or Ext.P10 and the petitioner is liable to pay tax at the rate in force from 01.04.2012 to get his vehicle registered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988._ _In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs._ 5. On going through the verdict as above, this Court finds that the submission made by the learned Government Pleader is fully justified and the issue is answered by this Court against the persons like WPC.No.14594/2012 6 the petitioner herein. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that nothing further requires to be considered in this writ petition. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** sv. WPC.No.14594/2012 7