IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32652 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.V.PREMARAJAN, KANDAMKUMARATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, PULPALLY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, WAYANAD. 2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 32652 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P1, P2 and P4 and seeks a direction to allow tax exemption as the vehicle has become unfit for operation and it is garaged and petitioner filed G Form in time. On 3.5.2001, according to the petitioner, the vehicle was seized by the financiers and they filed G Form. Petitioner is called upon to pay tax for the period from 1.1.2000 to 30.4.2001. Petitioner preferred appeal and it was rejected by the Deputy Transport Commissioner finding that G Form is not filed. According to the petitioner, G form was filed by sending the same under certificate of posting and the postal receipt was also produced before the Deputy Transport Commissioner. It is submitted that it is understood that the field officers on instructions from the first respondent have already conducted an inquiry and reported that the vehicle was not in use during the relevant period and was not in a position to use also. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 revision before the third respondent and it was rejected by Ext.P4 order. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions on the averment in the writ petition that it is understood that WPC. 32652/2008. 2 field officers conducted inquiry and made a report. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that there is no such report and such a report shall be made only in the event of G Form being filed, which has not happened in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that G Form was given in time and it was sent under certificate of posting and receipt was also produced before the Deputy Transport Commissioner. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand points out Note to Rule 10 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules. It reads as follows: “Note:- The previous intimation, referred to in this rule shall be sent by registered post acknowledgment due or presented to the office of the Regional Transport Officer, in person and in the latter case, acknowledgment for its receipt shall be obtained.” He therefore contends that either it has to be given by registered post acknowledgment due or it has to be given in person . In the event of giving it in person, acknowledgment has to be received. 3. I find force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader. The Rule mandates the manner in which G Form has to be tendered. It contemplates that G Form has to be sent by registered post acknowledgment due. The other method is to give it in person. The rule further provides that in such case, an acknowledgment has to be obtained. WPC. 32652/2008. 3 Apparently this was intended foreseeing the possibility of contentions being raised that it was sought to be given in other modes and having received action has not been taken or the action taken is illegal. The rule making authority wanted to remove the possibility of any confusion and set out clear conditions for the party availing the benefit of exemption. The method allegedly employed by the petitioner is not one of the methods contemplated under the rule. It is not open to the petitioner to claim the benefit of exemption without proving that he had submitted G Form in time. G Form has to be submitted in the manner provided under the Rules. I find no merit in the challenge to the concurrent finding of the Deputy Transport Commissioner and also the Transport Commissioner confirming the demand for tax by the officer. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb