SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s Sundaram Finance Limited,a company carrying on the business of hire purchase financ­ing in automobiles,with its Head Office at Madras and branches at various centres in Kerala,is the petitioner in these three writ petitions.The tax due under the Kerala Motor Vehicles(Taxation of Passengers and Goods)Act,1963(hereinafter called the 'Act ™),in respect of three stage carriage vehicle covered by hire purchase agreements executed with the petitioner by the concerned bus operators had been kept in arrear by those operators during certain periods prior to 31st March 1972.By the three notices produced as Ext.P -1 in each writ petition the petitioner -company was called upon by the Regional Transport Authority,Alleppey "the first respondent in all the writ petitions "to show cause why steps should not be taken against it for the recover of the arrears of tax due in respect of the three vehicles.The petitioner has,thereupon,come up to this Court with these writ petitions praying that the impugned notices should be quashed and that a writ of mandamus should be issued to the first respondent direct­ing him to forbear from taking any action against the petitioner -company for the recovery of the aforesaid tax arrears.

(2.) THE main contention put forward in these writ petitions in support of the petitioner 's prayers for the reliefs aforementioned is that under the scheme of the Act the liability to pay the tax is imposed only on an ''operator ;,and that since the petitioner is not an operator as defined in section 2(b)of the Act the demands made against the petitioner are illegal and unsustainable.It is further contended that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the arrears in question under section 11(1)of the Act also because the petitioner is not a transferee from the operator and the company was in possession and control of the vehicles at the time of the issuance of the impugned notices only on account of its having exercised the right of re -possession conferred by the hire purchase agreements and not pursuant to any transfer by the operator.

(3.) AS per the above definitions,only the person in whose name the permit for a stage carriage vehicle has been granted can be regarded as the operator in respect of that vehicle.If the wording of section 2(b)had stood in its original form,the petitioner -company would have been on strong ground in its contention that since the stage carriage permits in respect of the three vehicles did not stand in its name the company was not the operator in respect of those vehicles and hence had no liability to pay the tax.But,unfortunately for the petitioner,subsequent to the institution of these writ petitions,the Kerala Motor Vehicles(Taxation of Passengers and Goods)Amendment Act,1972 "Act 4 of 1973 -was enacted by the State Legislature whereby in the place of the original definition of operator contained in clause(b)of section 2 a new definition was substituted.Clause(b)of section 2 as it stands after the amendment is in the following terms: