COCHIN PORTTRUST Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by his common judgment. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the facts in W.P(C).No.4504/06.

(2.) The petitioner is a Major Port, constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act. For the purpose of handling cargo, the Port has acquired several cargo equipments, which are stated to be entirely within the premises of the wharves in the Port. The stand taken by the Cochin Port, earlier was that these equipments which are used for vesselling of cargo did not require to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act {hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'}. But, by judgment dated 3.4.01 a Division Bench of this court held that such vehicles handling cargo within the premises of the Port are also exigible to tax under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Accordingly, the cargo handling equipments were also required to be registered and actually registered under the Act. An amount fo Rs.2,00,67,077/- was demanded as Motor Vehicles Tax on 27.1.2005. The Cochin Port Trust, the petitioner, sought exemption from the Act, which was rejected under Ext.P1. Thereafter, a revised demand was made as per Ext.P2 for an amount of Rs.1,33,78,051/-. The said amount was comprised of Rs. 93,33,770/- by way of tax and Rs.40,74,280/- by way of additional tax. The tax component was remitted by the petitioner, but it moved the government again under Section 22 of the Act seeking exemption as regards the additional tax. This was intimated to the recovery officials in Ext.P4. Nevertheless Ext.P6 prohibitory order was issued by the recovery officials under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Ext.P6 was enclosed with a covering letter addressed by the Special Tahsildar to the Manager of the State Bank of India demanding a demand draft for Rs. 2,03,714/- by way of collection charges. The writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P6 and P7 insofar as it relates to the levy of collection charges. {Counsel submits that the writ petition is only concerned with the collection charges relatable to the Revenue recovery Act [for short 'RR Act']}.

(3.) Insofar as W.P.(C).No.7847/06 is concerned, the issue again is only regarding the levy of collection charges. The collection charges demanded in the said case is in relation to dues under the Agricultural Income Tax Act for the period 1998-99.