IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14382 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VINODKUMAR,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, VINOD BHAVAN, KAKKANADU PO,THRIKKAKARA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY(REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER),ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TRICHUR. BY SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 14382 of 2010-W ---------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P3 demanding a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner in respect of the offence under Section 86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act giving an option to the petitioner to have the same compounded. 2. The stage carriage bearing No.KL-07/AD 4710 was found as being operated as a contract carriage, as per Ext.P2 check report dated 18.1.2008. It is contended that, since the vehicle is having the seating capacity of 'less than 40', the action pursued by the respondent in respect of 'single day' operation as a contract carriage, directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.10,000/- as per Ext.P3 is wrong and unsustainable. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Mohammed Ibrahim V. R.T.O, Palakkad (2003 KLJ (Tax Cases) 59). It is also stated that as per Clause 6 of the proviso under the Schedule the liability to pay such tax in respect of a stage carriage, which is operated as a contract carriage is only at the rate of Rs.330/- per day, in respect of a stage carriage having a seating capacity 'exceeding 40' and at the rate of W.P(C) No. 14382 of 2010-W 2 Rs.200/- per day, in respect of a 'contract carriage' having a seating capacity 'not exceeding 40'. This being the position, the course pursued by the respondent is not correct or sustainable; submits the learned counsel. 3. In respect of the tax liability, the learned Government Pleader submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner, as to the liability, is quite wrong and misconceived. It is also stated that the demand as per Ext.P3 is only with regard to the amount to have the offence compounded. Reliance is also placed on para 7 of the decision cited by the petitioner himself, so as to sustain the said contention. 4. The contention raised in the said case by the concerned persons was that, once the offence committed under the 'Act' was compounded and the compounding fee was paid, no other amount could be demanded as Tax under Section 86(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said contention was held as not acceptable to the Court, observing that the liability to pay tax as provided under the relevant schedule of the Taxation Act was, after compounding the offence and paying the compounding fees. In other words, the payment of tax, which is a basic liability upon the person concerned, who operates the 'stage carriage' as 'contract carriage' W.P(C) No. 14382 of 2010-W 3 and on the basis of the entries in the schedule is, over and above the liability of the person concerned to have the offence compounded. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition. None of the ground raised in the Writ Petition is tenable. No interference is warranted and the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab