IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17892 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE MANAGER, LORD KRISHNA CENTRAL SCHOOL, KUTHIRAPPANTHI, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (TAXATION OFFICER), KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 17892 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this Writ Petition is against the demand made by the first respondent seeking to satisfy a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- towards the alleged tax arrears at the rate applicable to 'contract carriage', in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL-04/S.4860, which was purchased by the petitioner's school for running as 'educational institution bus'. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle was purchased from one Shanavas and ownership was transferred w.e.f. 08.09.2008 as borne by Ext. P1 and the tax arrears was cleared at the 'contract carriage' rate. Pursuant to the application preferred by the petitioner for Alteration and for Fresh Permit, sanction to alter the vehicle was granted on 16.10.2008. Since substantial repairs had to be effected to put the vehicle back to use, the vehicle could not be produced for further inspection before the first respondent for endorsing the alteration as 'EIB'. In the meanwhile, the 'fitness certificate' in respect of the vehicle expired on 06.04.2009, after which date, according to the petitioner, the vehicle was off the road and hence the tax that could be demanded was only at the rate as prescribed under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Ext.P2 memo demanding a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- is stated as not correct or W.P.(C) No. 17892 OF 2010 2 sustainable and is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, with reference to the statement, submits that inspite of the notice issued to the petitioner to produce the vehicle for inspection and for making the necessary endorsement after the alleged alteration as 'EIB' and also for payment of the prescribed tax, the petitioner did not pay any heed to the same and the vehicle was not produced for inspection. This being the position, the petitioner was very much liable to pay the tax at the rate as applicable to 'contract carriage' and hence seeks to sustain Ext.P2. The learned Government Pleader also submits that expiry of the validity of the 'fitness certificate' is not a ground for availing the benefit of tax at the rate of Non Transport Vehicle (NTV) in view of the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 722 of 2009. Reliance is also placed on the Rule 103 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation) Rules. Since the permit granted on 28.02.2006 is valid till 27.02.2011, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter requires to be considered passing appropriate orders by the first respondent. Since Ext.P2 is only a 'memo', by virtue of the course pursued by the first respondent, the petitioner is even denied of the right to avail the statutory remedy by way of appeal, if he is aggrieved of the order to be passed by the concerned authorities in W.P.(C) No. 17892 OF 2010 3 this regard, submits the learned Counsel. 4. In the above circumstance, the petitioner is permitted to file a detailed statement of objections with regard to the actual facts and figures before the first respondent within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, on which event, the same shall be considered and a 'speaking order' shall be passed by the first respondent within one month thereafter. The recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk