KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL- 03/C-8868, which is a Bajaj Tempo purchased in the year 2006, allegedly with a seating capacity of 13.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner when approached the concerned respondent for remitting tax for the last quarter, the same was refused to be accepted stating that the capacity was illegally reduced from 15 to 13, thus serving a notice to the petitioner seeking explanation in this regard, as borne by Ext.P6. On receipt of Ext.P6, petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply dated 20.06.2012, contending that, at the time of purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner in the year 2010, the seating capacity of the vehicle was shown as '13' itself as borne by Ext.P2. Ext.P3 receipt as to the contribution paid in respect of the workers under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund issued to the erstwhile owner also reveals the number of seating capacity as '13'. Ext.P4 is a copy of the policy of insurance, where also seating capacity has been shown as '12+1' as on 13.7.2010. Subsequent to the purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner, Ext.P5 contract carriage permit was given, showing the maximum capacity as '12' and this being the position, no further proceedings are liable to be taken against the petitioner in respect of the alleged alteration in the office records as to the seating capacity. Ext.P7 reply highlights the innocence of the petitioner, pointing out that there was no contribution at all in any manner, as to the unlawful activities pursued by the parties concerned.

(3.) INVOLVING exactly similar circumstance, another writ petition has come up for consideration before this Court as W.P. (C).No.11591/2012. The 'modus operandi' of the parties concerned was explained from the part of the respondents in the said case by filing a detailed statement. After considering the same, the similar relief sought for to permit the petitioner therein to satisfy the tax treating the vehicle as having a seating capacity of '12+1' was negated by this Court, for the obvious reason that, at the time of original registration of the vehicle, the seating capacity was something more and that the seating capacity was subsequently reduced as a result of the foul play . The learned Government Pleader submits that the issue involved in this case is also exactly the same and that the petitioner is not entitled to have any benefit of such fraud committed upon the Department/Government.