IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 596 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------------- NANDANAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, PULLANIKKATTIL HOUSE, KOZHIKKATTIRI, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/ TAXATION OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss g C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 596 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL-7 AR 8114. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order through which arrears of motor vehicle tax was demanded on the basis of enhanced seating capacity which was sought to be endorsed in the registration certificate. As per the existing endorsement in registration certificate the vehicle is having a seating capacity of 27 in all. By Ext.P1 proceedings the authority found that the vehicle is having a wheel base of 420 cm and hence it is liable to be fitted with 33 seats in all. Finding that there was a shortage in remittance of tax for the period from 1.10.2008 to 31.3.2010, the petitioner was requested to make payment of the arrears upto date and to produce the registration certificate for making necessary endorsement. 2. Challenging Ext.P1 the petitioner had preferred appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner, which was dismissed. Petitioner had filed further revision petition before WP(C)596/2011 2 the Transport Commissioner and the same was also dismissed by Ext.P3 order confirming the view taken in Ext.P1. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are not entitled to claim arrears of tax on the basis of enhanced seating capacity. It is contended that as per Section 26 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, the petitioner is liable for payment of tax only on the basis of seating capacity as endorsed in the registration certificate. Even if the authority has a case that the seating capacity is liable to be increased, tax can be collected only with prospective effect, is the contention. 4. The issue is no more remains res integra, as it is covered by a decision of this court in Shiju vs. Regional Transport Officer (2010(4) KLT 848). It is held by this court that under such circumstances tax can be collected only with prospective effect. In view of the dictum laid in the decision cited supra, I am of the view that the demand raised in Ext.P1, which is confirmed in Ext.P3, with respect to arrears of tax is unsustainable. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P1 and P3 are hereby quashed, to the extent it demands for payment of arrears of tax on the basis of enhanced seating WP(C)596/2011 3 capacity. Respondents will be at liberty to make necessary endorsement in the registration book and to demand enhanced rate of tax with prospective effect. . C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/