Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader for the Department of Taxes.
2. This appeal is against the decision of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition following the decision of the Division Bench in Hilal v. State of Kerala [2012 (3) KLT 438].
3. Hearing the learned counsel for parties, we are of the view that if Hilal (supra) has been correctly decided, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment on facts.
4. Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short, “1988 Act”, provides for and regulates registration of motor vehicles. Section 39 obliges registration. Section 40 provides that every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept. This requirement is subject to the provisions contained in Sections 42, 43 and 60 of the 1988 Act. Section 42 deals with registration of motor vehicles of diplomatic officers. Section 60 relates to registration of vehicles belonging to the Central Government. Section 43 provides for temporary registration. That enables the owner of a motor vehicle to apply for a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark. For that purpose, the vehicle will be temporarily registered by any registering authority or other prescribed authority. Such registration is valid only for the time limit prescribed by sub-section 2 of Section 43 and is not renewable except as regards those motor vehicles which fall under the proviso to Section 43(2).
5. Learned single Judge decided WP(C).No.8154 of 2012, as per judgment dated 10.4.2012, holding that the provisions in Section 43 of the 1988 Act and Rule 94 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 show that registration granted under those provisions is purely temporary and is valid only for a short duration which is not even renewable. The learned single Judge, in our view, quite rightly said that such temporary registration or the allotment of registration mark does not have the attributes of the registration of a motor vehicle which, for all intents and purposes, has to be understood as a registration under Section 40 of the 1988 Act.
6. Section 2(m) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 says that words and expressions used but not defined in that Act shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or the Rules made thereunder. A perusal of the corresponding provisions in 1939 Act vis-a- vis the provisions in 1988 Act clearly shows that the meaning assigned to the term 'registration' and that assigned to the term 'temporary registration' in Sections 40 and 43 respectively of the 1988 Act which correspond to Sections 23 and 25 respectively of the 1939 Act, clearly place those terms differently. Temporary registration as provided for in Section 43 of the 1988 Act, corresponding to Section 25 of the 1939 Act, has nothing to do with the expression 'registration' occurring in Sections 40 and 41. The word 'registration' in Sections 40 and 41 in 1988 Act, which respectively correspond to Sections 23 and 24(1) of the 1939 Act, is used in the 1988 Act and 1939 Act respectively to mean registration of a permanent nature in contradistinction to temporary registration, temporary certificate of registration and temporary registration mark provided for in Section 43 of the 1988 Act, corresponding to Section 25 of the 1939 Act. Therefore, the decision rendered by the learned single Judge in WP(C).No.8154 of 2012 that it is idle to contend that the temporary registration obtained under Section 43 of the 1988 Act should be treated as first registration as referred to in Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 is fully justified. The consequential decision that the rate of tax that was in force as on the date of permanent registration is applicable, is the correct view. We are therefore in agreement with the decision of the Division Bench in Hilal (supra), affirming the judgment in WP(C).No.8154 of 2012.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal fails.
In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan Judge Sha/ Babu Mathew P.Joseph Judge