The petitioner is the registered owner of a Tempo Traveller bearing registration No.KL-4-L-7467, since 5.8.2009. Contract Carriage permit was issued on 14.8.2009. The petitioner purchased the vehicle, which has seating capacity of 13, from another person. This was mentioned in the certificate of registration and the permit. Subsequently, he received a notice from the 3rd respondent to the effect that, on verification, the original seating capacity of the vehicle has been found as unauthorisedly reduced to 13 and the petitioner was directed to produce the vehicle before the competent authority, after providing the number of seats specified by the manufacturer and the registering authority at the time of original registration. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
“i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P3 notice being illegal and arbitrary.
ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondents to permit the petitioner to ply and operate his LMV Contract Carriage vehicle bearing registration No.Kl-4-L-7467 with its present seating capacity shown in the certificate of registration and permit.
iii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondents to accept the next quarterly tax of the petitioner's LMV Contract Carriage as per the present seating capacity shown in the certificate of registration and permit and (iii) pass such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court deems fit to grant to the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute in this case is already settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Musthaffa v. Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector [2014 (1) KLT 575], which was agreed by the respondents also. In paragraphs 3, 5 and 7 of the above decision it was held as follows:
“3. In Vishwanatha Menon (supra), the Full Bench considered the question relating to jurisdiction of registering authority under S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short, “M.V Act”, in matters relating to grant of permission for alteration of the motor vehicle and whether an application for altering the seating capacity can be refused for the reason that it would adversely affect the interest of revenue. The question whether an application for altering the seating capacity can be refused for the reason that it would adversely affect the interest of revenue was declined to be answered since according to the learned Judges, such issue did not arise for consideration on the facts of that case. In answering the question regarding the jurisdiction of the registering authority in relation to grant of permission for alteration of motor vehicle, three aspects were pointedly noted on the basis of the governing statutory rules. Stage carriage vehicles are not vehicles with ready-made body built by manufacturers themselves. In so far contract carriage vehicles with bodies manufactured by the manufacturers themselves and having a definite seating capacity as designed by the manufacturer, it was held that no permission was necessary under S.52 of the M.V. Act to reduce the number of seats as by such reduction, no alteration has to be made in the entry regarding 'seating capacity' in the certificate of registration and the 'seating capacity' in such cases would continue to be the same irrespective of the reduction in the number of actual seats. The Division Bench in W.A. No.1516 of 2010 is seen to have proceeded on the same footing, that is to say, that the tax liability due on a contract carriage will depend upon the seating capacity as shown in the R.C. Book. There are some observations in Vishwanatha Menon (supra) touching the provisions relating to rate of tax. However, the conclusion of those discussions as reflected in paragraphs 16 to 18 of that judgment as reported in K.L.T. Was to the effect that no permission is necessary under S.52 f the M.V. Act for reducing the number of seats of contract carriage vehicles with bodies manufactured by the manufacturers themselves and having a definite seating capacity as designed by the manufacturer because, by such reduction, no alteration has to be made in the entry regarding the seating capacity in the certificate of registration. It was also held that the 'seating capacity' in such cases would continue to be the same irrespective of the reduction of number of actual seats. The statements in that judgment that the tax liability for contract carriage vehicles is related to “the number of passengers permitted to carry in the respective vehicles” and the number of passengers permitted to carry will depend on the permit issued to the particular vehicle” were made only to further state that no arguments were placed before the Full Bench, including as to what are the conditions to be satisfied for making modifications or changes. It was, therefore, that the learned Judges declined to express any view on the question as to whether permission to alter the seating capacity can be refused for the reason that it would adversely affect the interest of revenue. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that Vishwanatha Menon (supra) was not rendered laying down any principle of law that would apply to the question as to whether the liability to tax under the K.M.V.T. Act would depend on the number of seats as regards contract carriage vehicles.
xxx xxx xxx 5. Section 3 of the K.M.V.T. Act is the charging provision. It provides that tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State, at the rate specified for such vehicle in the Schedule. Therefore, levy of tax has to be at rate specified for the vehicle concerned. Going to the Schedule to that Act, Sl.No.7 deals with motor vehicles plying for hire and used for transport of passengers and in respect of which permits have been issued under the M.V.Act. That clause is further classified into two sub clauses. Sub-clause (i) deals with vehicles permitted to ply solely as contract carriages and to carry passengers. That sub-clause gets further classified into (a) to (g) of which, (g) deals with tourist motor cabs and the other categories are identified by the number of passengers that could be carried in the vehicle. The vehicles permitted to ply solely as stage carriage get classified under sub-clause (ii) of Clause 7. While the number of passengers permitted to be carried may be relevant in so far as contract carriages with a definite seating capacity as determinable on the basis of its manufacture are concerned, the reduction in the number of seats, if any, made from the seating capacity, cannot be taken into consideration for reducing the rate of tax. To elucidate, it may be noted that if a contract carriage is a vehicle with manufactured body and fixed seating capacity designed by the manufacturer and if such seating capacity is, say 20; then by reducing the number of seats, the liability to pay tax cannot be brought down from what would be payable for the seating capacity of 20 persons.
xxx xxx xxx 7. Number of passengers permitted to carry would depend upon the permit issued to the particular vehicle. Questions as to whether permit holder has made application for making modifications in the permit, what are of the conditions to be satisfied for such change, or modifications in the permit and whether the authorities can refuse permission to modify the permit once granted only for the reason of consequential reduction in revenue are not matters for this Court to go into in this proceeding. In this case we are concerned with only the question as to where petitioner's application for reducing the seating capacity would lie under S.52 of the Act. Therefore in a case where there is a vehicle which has got definite seating capacity as designed by the manufacturer, no permission is necessary under S.52 of the Act for reducing the number of seats, since no such alteration has to be made in the entry regarding seating capacity of the registration certificate. Seating capacity would continue to be the same irrespective of the reduction of the actual number of seats.”
In the above case, this Court considered the seating capacity as designed by the manufacturer and the position of alteration made by the purchaser after obtaining a certificate of registration. The reduction in tax depends upon the permit obtained by the petitioner.
In view of the above observation made by the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly.
acd P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.