High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition dismissed; four monthly installme...

M/S Malabar College of Engineering & Technology v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 32550 of 2014 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. R. Ramachandra Menon
Judgment Date
2014-12-04
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition dismissed; the petitioner is permitted to liquidate the liability by four equal monthly installments, the first by 31 December 2014, with subsequent installments on or before the last working day of each month; coercive measures are kept in abeyance during the installment period; default will enable authorities to resume recovery proceedings.
Final Disposition
Writ petition dismissed; four monthly installments allowed; coercive measures stayed for the period of installments.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S Malabar College of Engineering & Technology, Pallur P.O., Desamangalam, Wadakkancherry, Thrissur-679532

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Department of Motor Vehicles, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sub Regional Transport Office, Wadakkancherry
  • Additional Registering Authority, Sub Regional Transport Office, Wadakkancherry
  • The Deputy Tahasildar (RR), Taluk Office, Thalapilly

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Dr. K.P. Pradeep
  • • Sri Anoop V. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Bobby Ohn Pulickapparambil

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, M/S Malabar College of Engineering & Technology, approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 challenging Ext.P14, a demand/order issued by the 2nd respondent on 04-12-2013, and Ext.P15/15(a) recovery notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The petition sought quashing Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 notices, and urged that motor vehicle tax under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 be computed only on the net purchase price, not on the sale tax and cess, and that the substituted definition of “purchase value” under the Kerala Finance Act, 2014 (Sections 2(ii) and 7(1)(b)) is unconstitutional. The petitioner also sought a refund of Rs.34,777 allegedly collected in excess and challenged the constitutional validity of the 2014 amendments. The State and Transport department respondents defended Ext.P14 and the recovery measures, arguing the tax base includes the components defined by law. The court noted inordinate delay in challenging the order and rejected reliance on an earlier view from Dr. Mercy George v. Joint RTO (2013) 4 KLT 157, a stance later unsettled by a Division Bench rejecting reference to that decision. Ultimately, the court declined to interfere under Article 226, but allowed four equal monthly installments with the first due by 31 December 2014, keeping coercive measures in abeyance and reserving rights to recover the balance on default.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 - Section 3(1)Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 - Section 2(1)(e) (definition of 'purchase value')Kerala Finance Act, 2014 - Section 2(ii)Kerala Finance Act, 2014 - Section 7(1)(b)Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 - Section 7Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 - Section 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be extended to a person with inordinate delay without justification (Ravindranath Bose v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 47).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P14 is unsustainable and seeks quashing; Ext.P15 notices should be quashed; tax liability under Section 3(1) KMVTA, 1976 should be computed on net purchase price; the 2014 Finance Act’s substituted definition of 'purchase value' is unconstitutional; prays for refund of excess tax and for protection against coercive recovery.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend Ext.P14 and the subsequent recovery notices, arguing that tax computation adheres to the statute and that the 2014 amendments are valid; request dismissal of the petition and upholding of recovery actions.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr Mercy George and others v. Joint RTO2013 (4) KLT 157OverruledThe judgment notes this earlier view but indicates rejection of reliance on it, and cites a Division Bench decision dated 06.12.2013 rejecting the reference to 2013 (4) KLT 157.
Ravindranath Bose v. Union of IndiaAIR 1970 SC 47PositiveCited to support the principle that the discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be extended, particularly in the context of delay.
WP(C)27683 of 2013WP(C)27683 of 2013Mentioned OnlyEXT.P11 references a judgment in WP(C)27683 of 2013; cited as an exhibit with no discussion of its merits in the text.
WP(C)320 of 2012WP(C)320 of 2012Mentioned OnlyEXT.P8 references a judgment in WP(C)320 of 2012; cited as an exhibit without discussion of its holdings.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/S Malabar College of Engineering & Technology v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 32550 of 2014 (P)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **---------------------** **M/S.MALABAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, PALLUR.P.O, DESAMANGALAM, WADAKKANCHERY THRISSUR-679532 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN K.S.HAMZA.** **BY ADVS.DR.K.P.PRADEEP SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR** **RESPONDENT(S):** **-------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERRY THRISSUR-680582.** **3. ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERRY THRISSUR-680582.** **4. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR(RR), TALUK OFFICE, THALAPILLY, THRISSUR.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BOBBY OHN PULICKAPARAMBIL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **----------------------------** ## **WP(C).No. 32550 of 2014 (P)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-------------------------------------** - **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE NO.RMO11112RP000165 DATED 17-09-2011 ISSUED BY M/S.RAJASREEE MOTORS PVT.LTD,ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE IN FORM 21 DATED 17-09-2011 ISSUED BY THE M/S RAJASREE MOTORS PVT.LTD,ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION NO.KL 39 D-TEMP-4460 DATED 17-09-2011 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY,THRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION SUBMITTED IN FORM NO.20 DATED NIL TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.44758/2011 DATED 24-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NO MCET/GEN-23/2011/12/01 DATED 27-12-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R/3061/2011/RW DATED 27-12-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-03-2012 IN WP(C)320 OF 2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX LICENCE NO B 09000692 DATED 17-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,WADAKKANCHERRY.** - **EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/DEMAND NOTICE NO.R/44741/2012/RW DATED 11-09-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-11-2013 IN WP(C)27683 OF 2013.** - **EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE MOTOER VEHICLE NO.KL 48-D 1 ISSUED BY THE ON 3-7-2012 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R/3061/2011/RW DATED 4-12-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.D4/2014/25012/8/200 DATED 14-11-2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT,1968 TO THE PETITIONER.** **WP(C).No. 32550 of 2014 (P)** **----------------------------** **EXT.P15(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.D4/2014/25012/8/200 DATED 14-11-2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT,1968 TO THE PETITIONER.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **---------------------------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A TO JUDGE** **LSN** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J** ## **---------------------------------W.P(C)NO. 32550 OF 2014** ## **-------------------------------------** Dated this the 04[th] day of December, 2014 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i. To call for the records leading to Ext.P14 order and issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order of direction, quashing Ext.P14 order issued by the 2[nd] respondent, forthwith; and ii. To call for the records leading to Ext.P15 and 15(a) recovery notices and issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing Ext.P15 and P15(a) notices issued by the 4[th] respondent consequent to Ext.P14 order. iii. To declare that the petitioner is liable to pay the motor vehicle tax as per Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, only on the net purchase price paid to the seller in Ext.P1 invoice and levy of motor vehicle tax on the amount inclusive of sale tax and cess is illegal, beyond the authority and unconstitutional and also direct the 2[nd] respondent to refund an amount of Rs.34,777/tax collected in excess in Ext.P9 to the petitioner, forthwith. iv. To declare that the provisions of Section 2(ii) and Section 7(1)(b) of the Kerala Finance **W.P.C NO. 32550 OF 2014** **2** Act, 2014 are unconstitutional and thereby the substituted definition of “purchase value” in Section 2(1)(e) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 as per Kerala Finance Act,2014 is illegal and unconstitutional. v. Direct the respondents to pay cost of this proceedings. vi. Grant any other relief, in the interest of justice, which this Honourable Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. 3. The challenge raised by the petitioner is mainly against Ext.P14 order, passed by the second respondent. Obviously, the said order was passed exactly 'one' year ago on 04.12.2013. The only explanation of the petitioner for the inordinate delay is that, the petitioner had consulted a legal consultant, when the petitioner was advised that Ext.P14 need not be challenged and that the amount was to be satisfied. It was thereafter, that another consultation took place, when the petitioner was advised to have it challenged and hence, the present writ petition. The version of the writ petition, as it appears in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition, is extracted below: **W.P.C NO. 32550 OF 2014** **3** “13. Aggrieved by Ext.P14, petitioner approached his legal consultant to challenge the said order, which is passed against the legal principles settled by this Honourable Court. But he was advised to remit the tax demanded in Ext.P14, stating the ground that earlier view of this Honourable Court was reversed in **Dr.Mercy George and others v. Joint RTO, 2013 (4) KLT 157** . Hence the petitioner did not proceeded with the matter, thereafter. 14. Meanwhile, a recovery notices are served to the petitioner from the office of the 4[th] respondent asking him to remit the demand finalized in Ext.P14 order. On receipt of Ext.P14, the petitioner consulted the matter with another lawyer, who advised him to challenge Ext.P14 order, since the advised he obtained on Ext.P14 is not correct, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Honourable Court dated 06.12.2013 rejecting the reference made in 2013(4)KLT 157. True copy of the Demand Notice No 2014/25012/8/200 dated 14.11.2014 issued under Section 7 of the RR Act by the 4[th] respondent is produced herewith and may be marked as Ext.P15. True copy of the Demand Notice No 2014/25012/8/200 dated 14.11.2014 issued under Section 34 of the RR Act by the 4[th] respondent is produced herewith and may be marked as Ext.P15(a).” **W.P.C NO. 32550 OF 2014** **4** 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not at all palatable to this Court. There is inordinate delay in raising the challenge. The petitioner was simply sleeping over arm chair. The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is not to be extended to a person like the petitioner herein, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in **Ravindranath Bose v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 47** 0. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. 5. However, considering the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the plight of the petitioner's establishment as on date and the extent of liability involved, the petitioner is permitted to liquidate the liability by way of 'four' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 31[st] of December, 2014, followed by similar instalments, to be effected on or before the last working day of the succeeding months, subject to which, the coercive provisions shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is also made clear that, if any default is made with regard to satisfaction of **5** ## **W.P.C NO. 32550 OF 2014** the instalments, it will be open for the respondents to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump, by pursuing such steps from the stage where it stands now. Sd/- **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge** lsn