V HARIDASAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) of stage carriage No. KRC 9340 which was sold to the fifth respondent by agreement dated 4.6.1997. Neither the petitioner nor the fifth respondent remitted the tax in time and the vehicle ultimately was seized by the police on account of non-payment of tax on 26.3.2000. However, the fifth respondent paid much of the arrears of tax in instalments. The petitioner's prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction directing the third respondent to grant exemption from payment of tax in respect of the vehicle for the period during which the vehicle was not in use. The petitioner has made an application vide Ext. P3 to the District Collector, kollam. Obviously the Collector not being the concerned authority rightly did not consider the matter. So far no orders are passed on that application. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner also approached the third respondent and according to the third respondent tax should be paid for the period during which the vehicle was in police custody as well. which was sold to the fifth respondent by agreement dated 4.6.1997. Neither the petitioner nor the fifth respondent remitted the tax in time and the vehicle ultimately was seized by the police on account of non-payment of tax on 26.3.2000. However, the fifth respondent paid much of the arrears of tax in instalments. The petitioner's prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction directing the third respondent to grant exemption from payment of tax in respect of the vehicle for the period during which the vehicle was not in use. The petitioner has made an application vide Ext. P3 to the District Collector, kollam. Obviously the Collector not being the concerned authority rightly did not consider the matter. So far no orders are passed on that application. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner also approached the third respondent and according to the third respondent tax should be paid for the period during which the vehicle was in police custody as well.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader also supported this contention of the third respondent that by virtue of Section 3(3) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976, registered owner of, or any person having possession or control of, a motor vehicle shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to use or keep such vehicle for use in the State, except during any period for which exemption from tax is granted under Section 5(1). Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the vehicle was under police custody, it cannot be said to be "kept for use" because the registered owner did not have possession or control of the vehicle during that period. In the absence of possession or control of the vehicle, it cannot be said that the vehicle was kept for use. In fact, the vehicle was detained for recovery of tax and the same was not kept for use, but for sale for recovery of tax arrears, if default continued. The petitioner therefore prays for a declaration that no tax is payable for the vehicle from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2002 when the vehicle was in police custody.

(3.) The question to be decided is whether tax can be levied during the period when the vehicle was in police custody. The Government Pleader has referred to Section 3(3) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 and contended that there is a presumption of use by the registered owner unless he claims exemption under section 5(1) of the Act. The relevant sub-sections of Section 3 are given hereunder for easy reference :