The petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KRQ 5732. It is his case that from 01.07.2004, 'G' Forms were filed with the authorities under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act for the purposes of claiming exemption from payment of tax. It is also averred that the vehicle was subsequently sold and the fact of sale was intimated to the registering authority on 02.06.2004 along with a surrender of the permit granted in respect of the vehicle. The grievance in the writ petition is against the demand of tax, made against the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2004 to 30.06.2006, during which period, according to the petitioner, he was not in the ownership, possession or control of the vehicle.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that although the petitioner had filed a 'G' Form to cover the period in question, on a verification done by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Muvattupuzha, it was revealed that the vehicle was not seen garaged in the place that was mentioned in the 'G' Form. Under those circumstances, it was not possible to accept the claim of the petitioner for exemption in terms of Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Further, it is pointed out that the petitioner did not comply with the statutory procedure for intimating the sale of the vehicle to the registering authority. Under these circumstances, the respondents were well within their powers to proceed against the petitioner for the motor vehicle tax due for the period in question.
3. I have heard Sri.Sajeevkumar.K.Gopal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader Sri.Liju V.Stephen, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that for the period in question he had submitted 'G' Form claiming exemption. The said exemption however, was not granted solely because the respondents relied on a verification report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Muvattupuzha dated 07.06.2006 pursuant to an inspection carried out on that date. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that an inspection conducted in 2006 cannot be a reason for assuming that the vehicle was not garaged for the period up to the date of inspection, since the motor vehicle Inspector would not have been in a position to assess that fact. I find force in this contention of counsel for the petitioner. When a person claims exemption from tax in terms of Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, and files the necessary 'G' Forms for the relevant period, if there is no inspection conducted, during the period covered by the Form 'G', to ascertain the correctness of the particulars entered in the Form 'G', then the taxation authority cannot deny the claim for exemption made by the claimant. If a claim for exemption has to be denied on the ground that particulars shown in the Form 'G' are incorrect, the inspection conducted by the authorities under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act for that purpose should also be during the period covered by the G Form and for which the exemption is claimed. In the instant case, the respondents while passing Exts.P1 and P3 orders have not taken into account the fact that, in respect of the various quarters upto the quarter covering the date of vehicle inspection, although G Forms had been filed, there was no inspection conducted and, therefore, there was no scope for denying the plea of exemption raised by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the findings in Exts.P1 and P3 orders which confirm the demand of tax from the petitioner even during those periods that were covered by valid 'G' Forms, the contents of which could not be disproved through an inspection conducted by the authorities during the period covered by the said Forms, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, I quash Exts.P1 and P3 orders to the extent they confirm the demand of motor vehicle tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act from the petitioner for the period up to, but not including, the 1st quarter of 2006. In otherwords, the respondents can proceed against the petitioner for recovery of only such tax as is due for the period after 01.04.2006.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns