PRASANNAKUMAR Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions arise from a common issue and therefore heard and decided together.

(2.) In WP(C) No.11714/2016, the petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-07 AB- 101. His regular permit was valid since 04/02/2005. He was granted renewal after three years in the meeting of the RTA held on 26/05/2015. Petitioner submits that after 05/02/2012, that is after the expiry of the regular permit, neither regular or temporary permits were issued to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner is not liable to pay tax for those periods the vehicle was not used nor kept for use as a stage carriage. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P10, an order passed by the Transport Commissioner rejecting his revision placing reliance on the judgment in Vipin Vs. Regional Transport Officer [2015 (1) KLT 89].

(3.) In WP(C) No. 21207/2016, the petitioner claims to be a stage carriage operator, whose regular permit was valid upto 26/08/2013. He also sought for exemption for payment of tax for the period during which he did not have a valid permit, which has been rejected by the Transport Commissioner as per Ext.P6 order dated 11/01/2016 placing reliance on the judgment in Vipin (supra).