V RAVINDRAN Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KED 9279, who was issued Ext.P1 permit valid till 11.7.2001. The controversy in this writ petition pertains to the rate at which the tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act is payable for the period from 1.4.1997 to 30.5.1999. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was garaged for major repairs with effect from 25.3.1997 and the certificate of fitness also expired on that date. It is also contended that for the subsequent period, in respect of the route covered by Ext.P1, temporary permits evidenced by Exts.P2,P2(a), P3 were issued. The garaging continued till 31.5.1999 and therefore the petitioner claimed that his liability is only to pay tax at the rate as shown in entry No.12 of the schedule to the Taxation Act. This claim of the petitioner was made before the 2nd respondent who by Ext.P6 rejected the same and ordered that the petitioner shall pay tax at the rate as applicable to stage carriages.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order petitioner filed appeal before Deputy Transport Commissioner. That also was rejected by Ext.P7 order. In Ext.P7 order the Deputy Transport Commissioner has held thus; "The petitioner's vehicle KED 9279 is covered by valid regular stage carriage permit to operate on the route Kakkad-Kozhikode valid till 11.7.2001. Even though the vehicle was garaged for repairs from 25.3.1997 onwards, the matter was intimated to the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram only on 1.6.1999. The petitioner has applied for idle rate of T/E w.e.f. 1.4.1997 onwards only vide an application dated 20.5.1999 which was received by the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram only on 1.6.1999. Even though the vehicle was garaged for repairs from 25.3.1999, the fact was hided by the petitioner till 1.6.1999 from the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram."

(3.) ALONG with the I.A.NO.3764/2012 the petitioner has produced a photocopy of the certificate of of registration concerning the vehicle in question. From the endorsement on this document, which is produced as Ext.P12, it is seen that the certificate of fitness expired not on 25.3.1999, as found in Ext.P7 order of the respondent but on 13.8.1998. The petitioner also contends that thereafter the certificate of fitness was renewed only with effect from 20.8.1999.