PHILIP Vs. RTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in these original petitions is whether the registered owner of a goods vehicle which is used only on private roads inside his factory or estate has any liability to tax; under the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1963, for short the Act. The petitioner in O. P. No. 2812 of 1975 is the Managing Partner of the Lakshmi coil and Chandravanam Estates, Peermade. His case is that the goods vehicle KLK. 2170 owned by the estates is used only on private roads inside the estates and that it is not used at any time for the carriage of goods of any other person. The petitioner questions Ext. P6 communication of the respondent Regional Transport Officer, Idukki directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 3,437.50 by way of T. P. G. on the goods vehicle from 1-7-1967 onwards. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that he is not liable to pay any tax under the Act for the carriage of goods in the goods vehicle within the private premises of the petitioner's estate. The petitioner in O. P. No. 5230 of 1975 is the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. which owns two goods vehicles, KLE. 4128 and KLE. 3763. The petitioner's case is that the above goods vehicles are used exclusively within the factory and only for the purposes of the factory. The petitioner questions Ext. P3 endorsement made by the respondent Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam in the Registration Certificate of the goods vehicle KLE. 4128 making the petitioner liable to a quarterly tax of Rs. 112.50 under the Act with effect from 1-4-1972 and directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1800/- by way of T. P. G. from 1-4-1968 to 31-3-1972. The petitioner also questions a similar endorsement in the Registration Certificate produced as Ext. P6 along with the original petition A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to cancel Ext. P3 endorsement as well as Para.2 and 3 of Ext. P6 endorsement is also prayed for by the petitioner.

(2.) Counter affidavits are filed by the respondents in both original petitions justifying the action taken to levy T. P. G. on the goods vehicles in question.

(3.) Shri Joseph Vellapally, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as long as the goods vehicles in question are used only on private roads belonging to the registered owners for carrying the goods belonging to the registered owners only, no liability to tax under the Act will arise. According to the learned counsel, tax under the Act will be attracted only when a goods vehicle is put on the pubic road. Learned counsel then refers to Entries No. 56 and 57 in List II, Schedule VII to the Constitution. Entries Nos. 56 and 57 read: