DAMODARAN Vs. R T O MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the registered owner of KEF 1185. He had purchased the vehicle and he is the registered owner as can be seen from Ext. P1. According to the petitioner he was not having a pucca permit and was plying on temporary permit. The permit was granted on 12.11.1998 only and no permit was issued prior to that. The petitioner has prepaid the tax as provided under S.4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for the quarter ending 30.9.1998. According to the petitioner even though he had paid the tax for the quarter ending 30.9.1998 the vehicle was not used from 30.9.1998 as the temporary permit was over on 31.8.1998. It is clear from the respondents' records also that permit was issued in November, 1998. Therefore, petitioner filed refund application for refund of tax. The above refund application was rejected on the ground that refund application was not filed within one week from the date of the alleged non use, as mentioned in SRO No. 874/75.

(2.) This court has consistently held that with regard to the application for exemption under S.5, 'G' Form should be filed in advance so that verification can be done by the authorities. But with regard to the refund of the tax under S.6 position is different. The entire tax paid is not refundable. Only part of the tax is liable to be refunded as provided under the rules, when the party had paid the tax in advance. S.6 reads as follows:

(3.) Petitioner also claims that since the vehicle is not having a permit, even though tax is payable, it can be only as a non transport vehicle. I set aside Ext. P7 and direct the appellate authority to reconsider the matter again with notice to the petitioner and refund application may be considered on merit without looking into the question of time bar and claim of the petitioner may be considered on both grounds according to law. Fresh orders should be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With regard to the tax for the month of October onwards, petitioner may pay the amount under protest subject to the decision as directed.