IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 W.P.(C) No. 36058 of 2007(P) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.P.JOSEPH, S/O.PATHU, PORATHUR HOUSE, VELLATTANJOOR P.O., WADAKANCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERY. 3. THE MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, WADAKANCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON 16/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 36058 OF 2007 P ===================== Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 and the petitioner is also seeking a declaration that the petitioner is liable to pay road tax concerning vehicle KL 9 A 3906 only at rates that are applicable to non transport vehicles with effect from 10/12/2005. A direction to the respondents to issue a certificate of fitness to the aforesaid vehicle is also sought for. 2. Petitioner submits that the vehicle in question was a contract carriage and Ext.P3 is the permit. The certificate of fitness expired on 9/12/2005 and thereafter the vehicle was not being operated due to various reasons including mechanical trouble. Petitioner wanted to make the vehicle roadworthy and to use the same, he wanted to obtain a fresh certificate of fitness. According to him, since 10/12/2005 as the vehicle was not operational, his liability is only to pay road tax at rate WPC 36058/07 :2 : applicable to non transport vehicles and therefore Ext.P4 representation was submitted to the 2nd respondent praying for issuance of certificate of fitness and permitting him to pay tax at non transport vehicle rates. It is stated that this request of the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected by the 2nd respondent by Ext.P7. Challenging Ext.P7 and seeking the reliefs mentioned above, this writ petition has been filed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the main contention that is raised is that the petitioner had not filed G form for the period from 10/12/2005, when the vehicle in question was stated to be not in use. It is stated that the requirement of G form is essential for any exemption from tax and respondents place reliance on the Full Bench decision of this court reported in Regional Transport Officer V. Abdu Rahiman (2007(1) KLT 613). 4. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that the absence of G forms is the reason for declining the relief prayed for by the petitioner. It is also true that in the Full Bench judgment relied WPC 36058/07 :3 : on by the respondents, it has been held that for any exemption from the levy of Motor Vehicle Tax, G form is a condition precedent. Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976 provides for exemption from tax. In this case, what is claimed by the petitioner is not exemption from tax, but the claim is concerning the rate of tax that is applicable. As already noticed, the contention of the petitioner is that since the validity of the certificate of fitness expired on 9/12/2005 and as the vehicle was also not operational, the liability of the petitioner is only for tax at non transport vehicle rates. 5. Apart from that, petitioner rightly relies on Ext.P6 and contends that in several similar cases, the benefit claimed by the petitioner has been granted by the respondents. Ext.P6 is an order that is passed by the Transport Commissioner, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: The permit of the vehicle expired on 23/1/2000. Therefore the Registered owner is not liable to pay tax at contract carriage rate from 01/02/2000 to 31/12/2000. Hence the revision petition is allowed upto an extent that Registered Owner will pay tax at contract carriage rate from 1/7/99 to 31/1/2000 and tax at Non Transport WPC 36058/07 :4 : Vehicle rate from1/2/2000 to 31/12/2000. The Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Thus, a reading of Ext.P6 shows that the petitioner is justified in contending that benefit similar to what is claimed by him has been granted in Ext.P6. However, I notice that Ext.P6 has not been referred to or relied on by the 2nd respondent while rendering Ext.P7. For these reasons, I set aside Ext.P7 and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made herein above. Orders in this respect, shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp/-