Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 414 (KER)

AHAMMEDKUTTY v. R. T. O. , KOZHIKODE

1988-08-31

G.VISWANATHA.IYER

body1988
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was the owner of a passenger bus K. L Z. 3994 which was operating on the route Kurumboyil-Kozhikode. The vehicle met with an accident in December, 1978 consequent on which it was garaged for repairs. The vehicle was never used thereafter. Intimation was given to the Regional Transport Officer on 4-1-1979 in form-G of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules (the Rules), with 1-2-1979 as the probable date on which the vehicle will be put to use. This was for the purpose of getting exemption from payment of the tax due under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (the Act). The petitioner subsequently gave another intimation dated 6-2-1979 in form-G by which he requested for exemption from payment of tax upto 31-3-1979 "and onward till resumption of service reported". No reply was received for either of these intimations. Later, and on 12-12-1979, the petitioner requested for permission to surrender the permit, which was granted, and the regular permit was cancelled with effect from 12-12-1979. The vehicle was also scrapped in the first quarter of 1980 as it had gone beyond repair. 2. The first respondent, Regional Transport Officer, called upon the petitioner, by his notice Ext.P2 dated July 2, 1981, to pay the tax due for the vehicle under the Act for the period from 1-4-1979 to 30-6-1981. There was no demand for the first quarter of 1979 for the reason that the two intimations in form-G did service to obtain exemption for that period. The petitioner objected to the demand by his letter Ext.P3 pointing out that he had submitted a "stoppage report" on 6-2-1979 showing the period for which exemption was claimed as "till resumption of service". The vehicle did not resume service thereafter and it was scrapped after surrendering the route permit. Therefore no tax was payable for the period in question. 3. The first respondent overruled this objection, and by his proceedings Ext. P4 dated 5-9-1981, called upon the petitioner to make payment of the tax for the period from 1-4-1979 to 31-3-1980. It was stated that the form-G intimations covered only the period upto 31-3-1679. The question of liability for tax for the period subsequent to 1-4-1980 was being examined separately in view of the petitioner's contention that the vehicle had been scrapped after surrender of the permit. 4. It was stated that the form-G intimations covered only the period upto 31-3-1679. The question of liability for tax for the period subsequent to 1-4-1980 was being examined separately in view of the petitioner's contention that the vehicle had been scrapped after surrender of the permit. 4. The petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner who disposed it of with a fairly elaborate order Ext.P5. The petitioner's contention was that in the second intimation dated 6-2-1979, he had claimed exemption from payment of tax till resumption of service was reported. The vehicle was not operated thereafter, and was in fact scrapped and therefore he was entitled to exemption from payment of tax for the entire period. The Deputy Transport Commissioner, examined the intimation in the light of S.5 of the Act, and R.10 of the Rules, and came to the conclusion that the intimation in so far as it related to the period subsequent to 31-3-1979 could not "be treated as one under the provisions in sub section (1) of S.5 of the Act". The petitioner was not therefore entitled to the exemption sought. The appeal was dismissed. 5. The petitioner's revision petition against this order, was dismissed by the Transport Commissioner, by the order Ext.P7. The Original Petition is filed challenging Exts.P2, P4, P5 and P7. 6. The petitioner reiterates in this court the contention which he had urged before the authorities below, and which found elaborate discussion in the order Ext.P5 of the Deputy Transport Commissioner. He submits that to earn the exemption, it is only necessary to give prior intimation about the non-use of the vehicle. It is not necessary to indicate precisely the date upto which the vehicle is intended to be kept without use. An intimation claiming exemption for the period "till resumption of service is reported" is sufficient compliance with S.5 of the Act and R.10 of the Rules. 7. The liability for tax under the Act is imposed by S.3. The tax is payable at the rates specified in the schedule. The schedule specifies the tax payable for every quarter. S.5 provides for exemption from payment of tax in cases where a vehicle is not intended to be used or kept for use, during the first month, or the first and second months of a quarter, or the whole of a quarter, or year, as the case may be. The schedule specifies the tax payable for every quarter. S.5 provides for exemption from payment of tax in cases where a vehicle is not intended to be used or kept for use, during the first month, or the first and second months of a quarter, or the whole of a quarter, or year, as the case may be. The exemption is available only if the registered owner gives previous intimation in writing to the Regional Transport Officer concerned that the vehicle would not be used for such period. On such intimation being given, the section deems that the registered owner or other person having possession or control of the vehicle, has not used it or kept it for use for such period, and no tax shall be payable for the vehicle for such period. R.10 prescribes the form in which the intimation is to be given. The rigour of the section has been whittled down by R.10 by providing that the intimation contemplated by S.5, which is to be in form-G, shall be made so as to reach the Regional Transport Officer within one Week from the date of commencement of the period for which exemption from payment of tax is claimed. Column 7 of form-G requires the registered owner or other person in possession of the vehicle to specify the period for which the exemption is requested for. The question for consideration is whether the intimation should mention any specific period as that for which the exemption is requested for; or whether it could be a general claim for exemption, till such time as resumption of service of the vehicle is intimated. 8. S.5 relates the exemption to definite periods, namely, the first month, or the first and second months of a quarter, or the whole of a quarter, or an year. Column 7 of form-G has to be read in the light of S.5. The owner should therefore specify in the intimation the period of the claim for exemption as one or other of the various periods mentioned in S.5. The intimation must accord with S.5, and unless column 7 relates to a period as referred to therein, it cannot be said that the intimation is in accordance with law. The owner should therefore specify in the intimation the period of the claim for exemption as one or other of the various periods mentioned in S.5. The intimation must accord with S.5, and unless column 7 relates to a period as referred to therein, it cannot be said that the intimation is in accordance with law. A vague or indefinite claim, as made by the petitioner, for exemption till such time as resumption of service is reported is not in compliance with S.5 or R.10 and is not sufficient to obtain exemption. 9. An analogous situation arose for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in Mani v. Regional Transport Officer 1988 (1) KLT. 22. This court said that a plain reading of S.5 shows that it does not postulate application for more than one quarter unless it is for one full year. An application for exemption should be for the first month, or for the first and second months of a quarter, or for the whole of a quarter, or year. Otherwise it is not in accord with S.5. In Mani's case, exemption was sought from payment of tax for the period from 29-11-1976 to 1-1-1978. It was held to be not in accordance with law. 10. In this view of the matter, the decision in R. K. V. Motors & Timbers v. Regional Transport Officer 1982 KLT 166 relied on by the petitioner has no application to the facts of this case. 11. So far as the petitioner's case is concerned, the intimation dated 6-2-1979 cannot do service for the period subsequent to 31-3-1979. It is not specifically for any of the periods mentioned in S.5 and therefore it is not in accord with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The petitioner was rightly denied the exemption by the respondents. 12. The Original Petition is therefore bereft of merit. It is accordingly dismissed, without however any order as to costs.