IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31837 of 2009(Y)
1. JOACHIN PEREIRA,S/O.PEREIRA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :16/11/2009
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
==================
WP (C).No. 31837 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
1. The petitioner is the owner of stage carriage vehicle,
bearing registration No.KA-19/AB-657, covered with an inter-
state permit on the route Manjeshwar-Mangalore. It is stated
that pursuant to prohibitory orders issued as per Ext.P1 and P2,
by the Karnataka State Road Transport Authority, the petitioner
was directed to stop operation of the vehicle and to surrender
the permit, from 05/05/2009 onwards. Thereafter, through
Ext.P6 decision taken by the said authority, the vehicle of the
petitioner as well as similarly situated vehicles were permitted to
revive operations. In the meanwhile, with respect to the period
during which the vehicle was kept idle, petitioner submitted
intimations about the non-use, to the second respondent, as
evidenced by Ext.P3 to P5, is the contention of the petitioner.
Grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering Ext.P3 to
P5 Ext.P7 Demand Notice is now issued requesting payment of
Motor Vehicle Tax due with respect to the period from
01/04/2009 to 30/09/2009. The petitioner was requested either
WP (C).No. 31837 of 2009
2
to pay the amount or state reasons for non-payment of tax,
within seven days. According to the petitioner, Ext.P8 reply was
submitted to the second respondent seeking to review the
liability on the basis that the vehicle was kept idle and
intimation was given to that effect, as evidenced by Ext.P3 to P5.
It is further stated that copies of such intimations were also
produced along with Ext.P8. It is contended by the petitioner
that exemption was granted in similar other cases and in the
case of the petitioner the second respondent is not considering
Ext.P8, and coercive steps are now being threatened for
realisation of the tax. It is also submitted that due to the
pending demand for the alleged arrears, the second respondent
is not accepting tax due in the current quarter and the petitioner
is put to difficulty, and he is prevented from plying the vehicle on
the strength of the existing permit.
2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents
on the basis of instructions submitted that the petitioner had not
submitted any claim for exemption in the prescribed format of
Form-G. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when
there is evidence regarding non-operation of the vehicle, the
WP (C).No. 31837 of 2009
3
claim for exemption need not be submitted in the format
prescribed, as it is as held by this court in various decisions.
3. Having considered facts and circumstances, I notice that
Ext.P7 is a Demand Notice whereby the petitioner was either
directed to pay the tax or to state reasons for non-payment. It is
evident that Ext.P8 was submitted in reply to Ext.P7 Demand
Notice. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the matter need
adjudication at the hands of the second respondent, who has to
consider the question whether the petitioner was applied for
exemption for payment of tax with respect to the disputed
period. Hence, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be
disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the
matter and to take a decision on the basis of Ext.P8.
4. In the result, the second respondent is directed to
consider Ext.P8 and to dispose of the same after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to finalise the
liability regarding payment of the tax for the period under
dispute, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
WP (C).No. 31837 of 2009
4
5. The petitioner had a further prayer to issue a direction
to the second respondent to accept tax due for the current
quarter and to permit operation of the vehicle, till finalisation of
the dispute as directed above. Considering the fact that the
amount demanded with respect to the disputed period has not
been paid, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be directed
to furnish bank guarantee for the amount in dispute. On the
petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee as stated above, tax for
the current quarter with respect to the vehicle shall be accepted,
provided there are no other arrears pertaining to any other
period. In such case, the petitioner shall be permitted to
operate the vehicle on the second respondent making necessary
endorsement in the registration particulars regarding the
liability.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above
observations.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
nl