The challenge in the original petition is against Exts.P5 and P6 notices, whereby the respondents have demanded motor vehicle tax from the petitioner for the period from 1.4.1991 to 31.12.1993. The petitioner is the owner of a tourist vehicle plying under an All India permit issued in terms of Section 88 (9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When the levy of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 was made applicable to the vehicle owned by the petitioner, the levy itself was challenged through O.P.No.4928/1992 before this Court. The said original petition was however disposed along with connected original petitions on 6.3.1995 declaring that the respondents can validly demand tax due to the State of Kerala in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and Rules. Exts.P5 and P6 are the demand notices issued to the petitioner pursuant to the disposal of the aforementioned original petitions. It is the case of the petitioner that during the period covered by Exts.P5 and P6 notices, there were various spells when the petitioner’s vehicle did not actually ply within the State of Kerala and hence, to that extent, the demand made in Exts.P5 and P6 notices is grossly O.P.No.36296/2001 2 exaggerated. It is pointed out that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P7 representation before the respondents requesting them to consider his case for remission of the tax demanded, taking into account the fact that there were periods when the vehicle was not operating within the State of Kerala. The said representation however yielded no response from the respondents. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner impugns Exts.P5 and P6 in the original petition. 2. I have heard Sri.Subhash Syriac, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Smt.Lilly.K.T, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that this is a case where the challenge against the levy of tax on vehicles, such as that owned by the petitioner and plying interstate on the strength of permits issued under Section 88 (9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, was rejected by this Court through the judgment dated 6.3.1995 in O.P.No.4928/1992. Thereupon, the petitioner became liable to pay tax in respect of the vehicle owned by him which had entered the State of Kerala. The only contention of the petitioner in the original O.P.No.36296/2001 3 petition is that there were various spells within the period indicated in Ext.P6 demand notice when the vehicle had, as a matter of fact, not plied within the State of Kerala. In the original petition, however, there is no document produced by the petitioner to substantiate the said contention. Under these circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the recovery steps taken by the respondents to recover the tax amounts specified in Exts.P5 and P6 notices. Resultantly, the original petition, in its challenge against Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 notices and the recovery steps initiated pursuant thereto fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
4. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has documents in his possession which would show that the vehicle in question was not operating within the State of Kerala during some spells within the period indicated in Exts.P5 and P6 notices. If the petitioner does have a case that he is entitled to a remission in the tax payable, on account of his vehicle not having plied within the State of Kerala, it is open to him to approach the authorities under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act by way of an application under Section 6 of the said Act and on complying with the procedural formalities thereunder to claim a remission in the tax amount payable. This, O.P.No.36296/2001 4 however, can be done by the petitioner only after payment of the entire tax dues demanded pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 notices. If the petitioner effects the payment of the balance amount due as per Exts.P5 and P6 notices, after deducing the amount of Rs.20,000/- already paid by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then, on an application being preferred by the petitioner for claiming refund of the tax paid on the ground that part of the amount represents tax for the period when the vehicle was not plying within the State of Kerala, the respondents shall cause the said application to be considered in terms of Section 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, read with Rule 15 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, and pass orders thereon within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of any such application.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
O.P.NO.36296 OF 2001 (U) -----------------------------------
J U D G M E N T 20th day of October, 2014