The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KEK/3169. It is his case that the vehicle completed 15 years of age in 2003 but, well prior to that date, it had ceased to be functional and hence it was garaged with effect from 1.1.2002. The petitioner would further point out that the vehicle was subsequently sold to one V.A.Azad and the transfer of the vehicle was endorsed on the registration certificate, although subsequently cancelled by the registering authority on finding that the tax dues in respect of the vehicle had not been paid. A demand notice was issued to the petitioner demanding motor vehicle tax in respect of the vehicle for the period from January, 2002 to July, 2002. Thereafter, Exts.P5 and P7 notices were issued in terms of Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act threatening coercive action including imprisonment of the petitioner for non-payment of dues for the period from 1.7.2002 to 31.3.2003. The petitioner, on receipt of the said notices, approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.7869/2008 which was disposed by Ext.P9 judgment that directed the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and pass fresh orders under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Ext.P12 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the directions from this Court. By the said order, the 2nd respondent has directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the petitioner for non-payment of the motor vehicle tax dues for the period from 1.7.2002 to 31.3.2003. Ext.P12 is impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition inter alia on the ground that the respondents themselves do not have a case that the vehicle was either put to use or kept for use on the road during the period in question and hence, the very initiation of the proceedings for recovery of motor vehicle tax dues for the period in question was not warranted in the instant case. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that while the petitioner had filed the necessary G Form to cover the period from 1.1.2002 to 30.6.2002 and had been granted exemption from tax for the said period, he had not furnished any G Form for the period from 1.7.2002 t0 31.3.2003 and under those circumstances, he could not claim exemption from payment of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and Rules. The counter affidavit also refers to the verification done with regard to the contents of the G Form that was initially filed by the petitioner for the period from 1.1.2001 to 30.6.2002. It would appear that the verification that was done by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector on 7.6.2003 showed that the vehicle had been garaged from 1.1.2002 till the date of inspection and that it was not put to use on road during the said period.
3. I have heard Sri.P.Deepak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Sri.Liju V. Stephen, the learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that although in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not file any G Form for the period from 1.7.2002 to 31.3.2003 for the purposes of claiming exemption from payment of tax for the said period, there is a report by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, who conducted an inspection pursuant to a G Form filed for an earlier period, on 7.6.2003. In Ext.P3 report of the said Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, it is stated that during the period from 1.1.2002 to 7.6.2003, the vehicle was garaged in the premises indicated in the G Form filed for the earlier period and also that the vehicle had not been put to use for the period from 1.1.2002 till 7.6.2003, the date of Ext.P3 report. In the light of Ext.P3 report, therefore, it becomes apparent that, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had not claimed an exemption in terms of Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act from the liability to pay motor vehicle tax, the respondents also do not have a case that the vehicle was actually put to use on the road during the period from 1.7.2002 to 31.3.2003 for the purposes of levying tax on the vehicle in question. It is trite that the question of exemption needs to be considered only when there is a liability to tax in the first place. Ext.P3 certificate that has been relied upon by the respondents in connection with the claim for exemption in respect of an earlier period, would clearly show that the necessary pre-condition for the levy of tax on the vehicle for the period in question did not exist and, consequently, there could not have been a demand of tax in respect of the vehicle for the period in question. In such circumstances, the fact that the petitioner did not prefer a formal claim for exemption by resorting to the statutory procedure under Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, would be of no significance since the liability of the petitioner to tax dues was not established. Accordingly, I find that the demand against the petitioner for motor vehicle tax dues in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No.KEK/3169 for the period from 1.7.2002 to 31.3.2003 cannot be legally sustained. Resultantly, Exts.P5 and P7 notices, as also Ext.P12 order passed by the 2nd respondent, are quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- remitted by the petitioner, pursuant to the interim order dated 19.2.2009 of this Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp