Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
M/S.Parackal Distributors vs The Regional Transport Officer/ on 6 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24654 of 2010(F)


1. M/S.PARACKAL DISTRIBUTORS, MANIKKATH
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :06/08/2010

 O R D E R
                    P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                   ---------------------------
                      W.P(C) No. 24654 of 2010-F
                  ----------------------------
              Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010.

                            J U D G M E N T

The challenge involved in this Writ Petition is in respect of the

steps taken by the respondents for realisation of the amount

allegedly payable by the petitioner as contribution under the Kerala

Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Act.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is having

two goods carriages bearing Nos. KL 07-BK-7487 and KL 07-BJ-

4328, which are being used for the purpose of transporting sanitary

wares and tiles. It is stated that the petitioner has employed drivers

to drive the above vehicles and they are the employees covered

under the Employees Provident Fund Schemes and the Gratuity

Schemes which is very much evident from Ext.P6 and P7 certificates

issued in this regard. The case of the petitioner is that, since the

employees are covered under the EPF Act/Scheme, there is a clear

provision for exemption and that they are not liable to be covered

again under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund

Act/Scheme. It is stated that the issue is squarely covered by the

W.P(C) No. 24654 of 2010-F 2

decision rendered by this Court reported in Hymavathi Vs. Special

Deputy Tahsildar [2008 (3) KLT 807].

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

first respondent and the learned standing counsel appearing for the

second respondent as well.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the case put

forth by the petitioner appears to be quite sustainable and the issue

is covered by the decision cited supra. Accordingly, the steps taken

by the respondents demanding contribution to the Kerala Motor

Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund are declared as not correct or

sustainable and the petitioner does not have any necessity to

produce any ‘exemption certificate’ from the second respondent, for

effecting payment of tax in respect of the vehicles as mentioned

hereinbefore.

5. In the above circumstance, the first respondent is

directed to accept the tax in respect of the vehicles bearing

No.KL07/BK 7487 and KL 07/BJ 4328 belonging to the petitioner as

mentioned above, without insisting to produce any certificate of

clearance from the first respondent.

The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No cost.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

ab


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.150 seconds.