SHAIJU Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is the same they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to the facts and the exhibits is from W.P.(C).No.7046 of 2017.

(2.) The petitioner is a contract carriage operator and registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-41E-6700, which is covered by a contract carriage permit that is valid upto 12.03.2020. The vehicle initially had push back seats, in lieu of fixed seats, and the petitioner used to pay tax at the rate applicable to contract carriages fitted with push back seats ie. at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per seat. After effecting a conversion of the seats from push back seats to fixed seats in the aforesaid vehicle, by a request dated 01.09.2016, the petitioner sought for an inspection of the vehicle by the respondent. The respondent, thereafter, required the petitioner to produce the vehicle for inspection, and after inspecting the vehicle proceeded to indicate that irrespective of the conversion of the seats from push back to fixed, the petitioner would still have to pay motor vehicle tax at the rate applicable to contract carriage fitted with push back seats. It is therefore, that the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondent to apply the rate of tax applicable to ordinary contract carriages with the same seating capacity, in lieu of the rate applicable for contract carriages fitted with push back seats of the same seating capacity. In W.P.(C). No.20799 of 2017, the facts are similar with the sole exception that by Ext.P5 order of the respondent in that case, the application preferred by the petitioner for alteration of the type of seat in the vehicle from push back seats to ordinary seats was allowed by the respondent subject to the condition that the petitioner continue to pay tax at the rate applicable for contract carriages fitted with push back seats.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent in W.P(C).No.7046 of 2017, wherein the stand taken is that although the petitioner could seek an alteration of the nature of the seats in the vehicle covered by the contract carriage permit, inasmuch as the change in the nature of the seat would result in reduction in the tax payable by the petitioner, the same could not be permitted. Reliance is placed by the respondent on the decision of this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. R.T.O, Alleppey [1997 (1) KLT 386] as also in Musthaffa K.K and Others v. Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Thrissur and Another [2014 (1) KLT 575] in support of the said contention.