JUDGMENT : "When does the period for filing an application claiming refund of motor vehicle tax commence under Rule 15A(2)(i) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1975 ? " The aforesaid question requires to be answered in this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order declining to grant refund on the ground of bar of limitation. 2. Petitioner is the registered owner of a motor car which was initially registered in Kerala as KL-07/CR-1564. The said vehicle was registered on 16.03.2019, and a one time tax was paid which was valid till 2033. Subsequently, pursuant to a change of residence to Tamil Nadu, a No Objection Certificate [for short, NOC] was obtained on 12.10.2020 and the vehicle was taken to Tamil Nadu and re-registered on 10.03.2021 as TN-10/BM-4299. Thereafter, on 04.03.2022, an application was filed before the second respondent seeking refund of one time tax paid in Kerala. However, by the impugned order dated 06.10.2022, the refund application was rejected as belated. 3. Petitioner was denied refund on the ground of limitation by treating the date of NOC as the date of removal of the vehicle from Kerala as per Rule 15A(2)(i) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1975 [for short, the Rules]. Petitioner challenges the aforesaid order and contends that exemption from the limitation period during Covid-19 Pandemic, as ordered by the Supreme Court, was available and hence her application ought to have been treated as filed within the time prescribed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent pointing out that the vehicle was assessed to a one time tax of Rs.57,320/- for the period from 12.03.2019 to 31.12.2033. Subsequently, after obtaining NOC, the vehicle was removed to Tamil Nadu, where it was re-registered. According to the second respondent, in view of the statutory prescription of one year time limit from the date of removal of the vehicle from Kerala, an application for refund as per R.15A(2)(i) of the Rules should have been submitted within one year from the date of NOC. Instead, petitioner submitted the application only on 04.03.2022, which was beyond the period prescribed. Instead, petitioner submitted the application only on 04.03.2022, which was beyond the period prescribed. It was also pleaded that in view of the decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Others v. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Care Limited AIR 2020 SC 2819 , it was not possible for any extension of time contrary to the time prescribed in the Statute. 5. I have heard Sri. Prasad Chandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 6. Permission was obtained by the petitioner to remove the vehicle out of Kerala and be re-registered, as per the NOC dated 12.10.2020 and re-registration was effected in Tamil Nadu only on 10.03.2021. The refund application was filed on 04.03.2022. If the period is calculated from the date of NOC, the application for refund is belated, while, if the period is calculated from the date of re-registration, the application is within time. 7. To comprehend the process for claiming refund after re-registration of a vehicle in a new State, it is necessary to refer to the statutory provisions. Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , mandates that if a motor vehicle registered in one State is kept in another State, for a period exceeding twelve months, the owner of the vehicle should apply to the registering authority, within whose jurisdiction the vehicle then is, for the assignment of a new registration mark and should also present the certificate of registration to that registering authority. After assigning the vehicle a new registration mark of the transferee State and entering it in the certificate of registration, it shall be returned to the applicant. Communication shall also be given to the previous registering authority and records of the earlier registration of the vehicle shall also be transferred to the registering authority of the transferee State. 8. Section 6 (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) deals with refund of tax when the registration of the vehicle is cancelled or when it is removed outside the State, due to transfer of ownership or change of address. The said provision reads as follows: S.6.(2). 8. Section 6 (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) deals with refund of tax when the registration of the vehicle is cancelled or when it is removed outside the State, due to transfer of ownership or change of address. The said provision reads as follows: S.6.(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a registered owner who has paid tax for a year or more shall be entitled to refund of tax at such rates as may be prescribed on cancellation of the registration of the vehicle or removal of the vehicle to any place outside the State on account of transfer of ownership or change of address. Provided that no Green Tax paid shall be refunded under this section. 9. Since Rule 15A is also relevant, it is extracted as below: “15A. Refund of one time tax.- (1) Subject to the conditions laid down in sub-rule (2), the vehicles specified in serial numbers 1,2,3(i)(a) to 3(i)(e),3(ii)(a) to 3(ii)(e),6,7(i)(a) to 7(i)(c),10(iii) and 11(i) of the Schedule for which one time tax of lump sum tax has been paid, but the vehicle is removed permanently from this State on transfer of ownership or change of address or the registration of the vehicle has been cancelled during the currency of tax so paid and the amount of tax to be refunded shall be the difference between the actual amount of tax paid and the amount calculated by multiplying the number of years for which the motor vehicle was actually used in the State by the proportionate yearly rate of the one time tax or lump sum tax already paid. For computing the period of usage, the period less than one year shall also be treated as one year. (2) For refund of tax the following conditions have to be satisfied, namely;- (i) the application for refund of tax shall be made to the Regional Transport Officer/Joint Regional Transport Officer concerned within one year from the date of removal of the vehicle from this State; (ii) tax licence shall be surrendered along with the application; and (iii) a certificate obtained from the Registering Authority of the other transferee State shall be produced to the effect that the vehicle has been included in that region and tax due to that State has been paid.” 10. Rule 15A of the Rules stipulate that the application for refund ought to be filed within one year from the date of removal of the vehicle from the State. In the impugned order, the second respondent has proceeded to consider the date of NOC as the date of removal. The date of removal of the vehicle need not necessarily be a fixed date and it can vary on a case to case basis. The date of re-registration of the vehicle in the other State, on the other hand, is a certainty. There is no stipulation in the Rules that the date of NOC ought to be treated as the date of removal of the vehicle from the State. Issuance of an NOC only enables the owner of the vehicle to remove it from the State and apply for re-registration in the transferee State. Until the vehicle is re-registered and tax is paid in the transferee State, the vehicle has to be covered by the motor vehicle tax. The claim for refund of tax can therefore be validly made only after tax is paid in the transferee state. Hence the application for refund can be preferred only after re-registration, and not before. 11. The aforesaid proposition can further be deduced from Rule 15A(2)(iii) of the Rules which stipulates that a certificate must be produced along with the application, certifying that the vehicle has been included in the register of the transferee State and tax has also been paid to that State. Such a certificate can be obtained only after re-registration and consequential payment of tax in the other State. If for instance, after obtaining an NOC for the vehicle, the application for refund is made on the very next day, even if the application can be regarded as filed within time, still, it cannot be processed, as tax has neither been paid nor the vehicle re-registered and a certificate to that effect could also not be produced as well. Thus, the time for filing an application for refund of tax as per Rule 15A of the Rules can commence only from the date of re-registration of the vehicle in another State and not from the date of NOC. 12. Thus, the time for filing an application for refund of tax as per Rule 15A of the Rules can commence only from the date of re-registration of the vehicle in another State and not from the date of NOC. 12. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in EVM Motors and Vehicles India (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2020 SCC Online KER 14882 , where it was observed that the claim for refund can be made only after the vehicle is registered in the State to which it is removed and after payment of the tax payable in the said State. 13. Apart from the above, a question may arise whether when the statute creates a right for refund of tax, the rules could extinguish that right by prescribing a period of limitation. Since, this Court has already found that the application was filed by the petitioner within the period prescribed under Rule 15A of the Rules, the above mentioned question does not arise for consideration in this case. In fact, in EVM Motors’s case (supra) also the question whether Rule 15A of the Rules prescribes a period of limitation or not, was left open. 14. In view of the above discussion, rejection of petitioner's application for refund on the ground of delay is erroneous. The application having been filed within one year of re-registration, the application is within time and petitioner is eligible for refund of tax, in accordance with law. Hence, Ext.P3 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for refund of tax on merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed.