IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14382 of 2010(W)
1. VINODKUMAR,AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TRICHUR.
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :20/05/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No. 14382 of 2010-W
----------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability
of Ext.P3 demanding a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner in
respect of the offence under Section 86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act
giving an option to the petitioner to have the same compounded.
2. The stage carriage bearing No.KL-07/AD 4710 was
found as being operated as a contract carriage, as per Ext.P2 check
report dated 18.1.2008. It is contended that, since the vehicle is
having the seating capacity of ‘less than 40’, the action pursued by
the respondent in respect of ‘single day’ operation as a contract
carriage, directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.10,000/-
as per Ext.P3 is wrong and unsustainable. Reliance is placed on the
decision rendered by this Court in Mohammed Ibrahim V. R.T.O,
Palakkad (2003 KLJ (Tax Cases) 59). It is also stated that as per
Clause 6 of the proviso under the Schedule the liability to pay such
tax in respect of a stage carriage, which is operated as a contract
carriage is only at the rate of Rs.330/- per day, in respect of a stage
carriage having a seating capacity ‘exceeding 40’ and at the rate of
W.P(C) No. 14382 of 2010-W 2
Rs.200/- per day, in respect of a ‘contract carriage’ having a seating
capacity ‘not exceeding 40’. This being the position, the course
pursued by the respondent is not correct or sustainable; submits the
learned counsel.
3. In respect of the tax liability, the learned Government
Pleader submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner,
as to the liability, is quite wrong and misconceived. It is also stated
that the demand as per Ext.P3 is only with regard to the amount to
have the offence compounded. Reliance is also placed on para 7 of
the decision cited by the petitioner himself, so as to sustain the said
contention.
4. The contention raised in the said case by the concerned
persons was that, once the offence committed under the ‘Act’ was
compounded and the compounding fee was paid, no other amount
could be demanded as Tax under Section 86(5) of the Motor
Vehicles Act. The said contention was held as not acceptable to the
Court, observing that the liability to pay tax as provided under the
relevant schedule of the Taxation Act was, after compounding the
offence and paying the compounding fees. In other words, the
payment of tax, which is a basic liability upon the person
concerned, who operates the ‘stage carriage’ as ‘contract carriage’
W.P(C) No. 14382 of 2010-W 3
and on the basis of the entries in the schedule is, over and above
the liability of the person concerned to have the offence
compounded.
In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit
in the Writ Petition. None of the ground raised in the Writ Petition is
tenable. No interference is warranted and the Writ Petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab
