IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2144 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9908/2008 Dated 18/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C) ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ALUVA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD POLICE STATION. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. BABU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN W.P(C) ----------------------------------- P.A.AREEF, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALOOPALATH HOUSE, BRIDGE ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI. T.K. PANKAJAKSHAN PILLAI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 2144 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Government Pleader for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent. The question raised is whether respondent is liable to pay motor vehicle tax during the period when the vehicle was in Government custody. It is conceded that if G Form was filed for the period during which the vehicle was in Govt. custody, then no vehicle tax would have been paid by the respondent. The production of G form prescribed under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules is to ensure for vehicles kept for use on road, exemption should be granted only if advance intimation about non-use is given to the registering authority. In fact inspection is arranged for physical verification about garaging of the vehicle before granting exemption. In this case, admittedly the period for which the learned single Judge ordered refund of tax is the period during which the vehicle was in Govt. custody after seizure for non- 2 payment of tax. Since the vehicle was not in use and could not be used when it was in Government custody, the demand for arrears is not tenable and tax recovered for the said period should be refunded to the respondent. In fact we are of the view that charges should be recovered for retention of vehicle in Govt. custody which again is on account default by the party. However, unfortunately no law is so far made for Government to collect charges from parties whose vehicles are taken and kept in Government custody for various reasons. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed. However, we make it clear that if refund claimed is towards tax paid for the period prior to seizure of vehicle, then such amount need not be refunded. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3