JOMON M. ARACKAL Vs. THE TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters have been referred to the larger bench by the order dated 30.11.2011 of a Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.20/2008. The Full Bench expressed a difference of opinion with the views expressed by another Full Bench in Regional Transport Officer v. Abdurahiman, 2007 1 KerLT 613 , on the issue of whether a claim for exemption from motor vehicle tax, in respect of vehicles that were in police custody, could be allowed only in accordance with the procedure contemplated in Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), read with the provisions of Rule 10 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The earlier Full Bench, while considering cases of detention of vehicles in police custody, pursuant to a non-payment of tax under the Act, had opined that a claim for exemption from tax under the Act could be maintained only in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 thereof, and by following the procedure contemplated in Rule 10 of the Rules. In the alternative, it was held that the person claiming exemption in such cases could also opt for paying the tax first and then claiming a refund of the tax so paid by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 6 of the Act read with Rule 15 of the Rules. The referring Full Bench, however, while dealing with cases where the detention of the vehicle in police custody was for reasons other than non-payment of tax under the Act, opined that a claim for exemption from tax under the Act could be maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, read with Notification SRO 878/1975 dated 29.09.1975, and it was not necessary for the claimant to comply with the procedure contemplated under Section 5 of the Act, read with Rule 10 of the Rules. The referring bench felt that the decision of the earlier Full Bench in Abdurahiman's case required to be clarified in its application to cases where the detention of the vehicle was for reasons other than non-payment of tax under the Act.

(2.) Before we consider the views expressed in the Full Bench decisions referred to above, it would be apposite to notice the relevant statutory provisions in the Act and the Rules, as also the terms of Notification SRO 878/1975 dated 29.09.1975. They read as follows:

(3.) It is in the backdrop of the above legal provisions that a Full Bench of this Court in Abdurahiman's case was called upon to consider the issue of whether the owner of a motor vehicle, that was taken into custody for non-payment of tax under the Act, could claim exemption from tax in terms of Section 5 of the Act for the period during which the vehicle was in police custody and, if so, whether he had to comply with the procedure prescribed in Rule 10 of the Rules for the purposes of claiming the exemption. The Full Bench, after a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, found as follows: