IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 722 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23235/2006 Dated 24/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------- PUSHPANATHAN K.T., KUNIYIL HOUSE, KOTTAYAMPOIL, PATHAYAKUNNU, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANNUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVASIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.722 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by him challenging Exts.P1 to P3 orders. By Ext.P1, his claim for exemption from payment of tax from 26.5.2001 to 30.9.2002 in respect of his stage carriage KL-13/A-8404 was rejected by the Regional Transport Officer, Kannur. The said decision was affirmed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner by Ext.P2 order. By Ext.P3 order dated 28.3.2006, the Transport Commissioner dismissed the revision filed against Ext.P2. 2. The Regional Transport Officer found, based on the materials on record, that there was no valid 'G' form for the period from 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2001 and from 1.1.2002 to 30.9.2002. So, the claim of the appellant for exemption of tax for the above period was rejected. As mentioned earlier, the said order was affirmed by the appellate and revisional W.A. No.722/2009 2 authorities. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the said orders. Hence this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. O.D.Sivadas, submitted that, if exemption cannot be granted, he is entitled to remit tax at NTV rate as provided under item 12 of the Schedule to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). But, it is not in dispute that at the relevant time the appellant's vehicle was covered by a stage carriage permit. Therefore, the vehicle will come under item 7 of the Schedule to the Act. 4. But, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his vehicle was without fitness certificate and therefore he could not have operated it. It was neither used nor kept for use in the State as a stage carriage and therefore tax at NTV rate alone could have been levied. But, as long as the vehicle is covered by a stage carriage permit, the statutory presumption under Section 3 of the Act will make the vehicle exigible to tax. Every vehicle in the State is presumed to be used or kept for use W.A. No.722/2009 3 in the State and unless the said statutory presumption is rebutted following the procedure provided in the Act and Rules framed thereunder an owner of the vehicle is liable to pay tax. This position is settled by several decisions of this Court and one among them is in Kannappan v. R.T.O., Ernakulam [1988(1) KLT 902]. Therefore, the claim of the appellant for exemption cannot be accepted. As his vehicle is covered by a stage carriage permit his further claim that he is liable, if at all, only for the NTV rate, also cannot be accepted. In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps