The petitioner purchased an AUDI A6 3.0 LMV - Motor Car from the concerned dealer, satisfying the entire sale consideration and tax payable under the KVAT Act, at the prescribed rate. On satisfaction of the due amount, the vehicle was caused to be registered by the concerned respondent assigning the register No. KL-39- G-1111. The petitioner had no grievance with regard to the course and events at any point of time. 2. Heartburn started, much later. Some buyers purchased similar vehicles required to satisfy tax quantifying it also reckoning the element of 'Value Added Tax' as well, as part of the purchase value. According to the them, the purchase value as defined under Section 2 (e) of Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act constituted only the invoice value i.e. without reckoning the element of Value Added Tax. Since registration of the vehicle was denied, the said petitioners were compelled to approach this Court for causing the vehicles to be registered. In some cases, interim orders were passed to cause the vehicles to be registered; while in other cases, the payment was ordered to be effected, subject to outcome of the writ petition. Finally, the matter was decided by a Division Bench of this Court holding that tax paid under the KVAT Act is not liable to be reckoned as part of the purchase value, for quantifying the tax payable under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The concerned petitioners got benefit of the said declaration.
3. In the course of time, the Government thought it fit to amend the definition of the term 'purchase value' by virtue of Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 7 of the Finance Act 2014, which reads as follows :
(e) “purchase value” means the value of the vehicle as shown in the purchase invoice and includes value added tax, cess and customs/excise duty chargeable on vehicles : provided that the discount or rebate given by the dealer to the registered owner shall not be deducted from the bill amount for computing the purchase value;
provided further that where the purchase value of any vehicle including a vehicle imported from other countries or a vehicle acquired or obtained otherwise than by way of purchase is not ascertainable on account of non availability of invoice, the purchase value shall be the value of price of the vehicles of the same specifications which are already registered or available with the manufacturer or as fixed by the Customs and Central Excise Department for the purpose of levying customs duty and includes excise or customs duty levied on the purchase of motor vehicle, as the case may be.”
5. The petitioner herein, on revelation, has now approached this Court, alleging that there was an excess payment and seeks for refund of the payment with reference to the decision rendered by this Court in Fathima Shirin Vs. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Kayamkulam and Others [2013 (3) KHC 714].
6. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
7. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioner did not have any grievance at any point of time, with regard to the quantification of tax and registration of the concerned vehicle and that the petitioner never found it fit to challenge the proceedings in any manner at the relevant time. This being the position, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled to come before this Court without raising any challenge earlier, seeking for refund of the alleged excess amount effected by him. This Court does not find any tenable ground to interfere. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
AMV/10/11/ Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE