CHERIAN THOMAS Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner owned a goods carriage vehicle bearing registration No. KLF 2080. As is seen from Ext. P-3 revisional order passed by the Transport Commissioner, Trivandrum, and as averred in the petition the said vehicle was garaged for repairs on 12-9-1975. The petitioner's case is that thereafter the said vehicle has not been used at all and that it was sold out as scrap iron. It is the petitioner's further case that while the said vehicle was in the garage its permit expired on 30-6-1976 and the validity of the said vehicle's fitness certificate expired on 1-10-1975. According to the petitioner, the permit was not renewed thereafter, nor any fitness certificate obtained for the vehicle subsequently. These facts have not been controverted by any counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner submitted three applications for exemption from payment of the tax in respect of the vehicle in question payable under S.3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1976 (hereinafter the Act). His first application was on 30-10-1975. By the said application he sought exemption from payment of tax under the Act for the period 1-10-1975 to 31-12-1975, The said application was received by the concerned authority, namely the 1st respondent herein on 3-11-1975. He submitted his second application in that behalf on 7-1-1976. By this application he sought exemption from payment of tax in respect of the vehicle in question for the period starting with 1-10-1975 and ending with 31-12-1976-His third application was on 7-4-1977. By that application he sought exemption from payment of tax under the Act for the period 1-10-1975 to 30-6-1977. It is his case that during all this time, from 1-10-1975 to 30-6-1977, the vehicle was in the garage, and that even thereafter the vehicle has not been used on the public roads.

(3.) The 1st respondent rejected the petitioner's application submitted on 30-10-1975 for the reason that it was not received within one week from the date of commencement of the period for which exemption from payment of tax in respect of the vehicle in question was claimed on account of its non user. The petitioner's second application was rejected stating that the registration certificate has not been produced along with that application, which as already stated, was submitted on 7-1-1976. The 1st respondent partially acted upon the petitioner's third application, in that he granted exemption for the period 1-4-1977 to 30-6-1977. According to the 1st respondent, here again the application was belated so far as an inclusive of the quarter ending 31-3-1977.