IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 1632 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.L.PAULY, S/O.LONAPPAN, PALAYI HOUSE, CHALAMPADAM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SMT.G.CHITRA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR, PIN -680 001. *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED: R2. T.P.SEBASTIAN, THEKKANETH HOUSE, MADAYIKONAM P.O., IRINJALAKUDA. (*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 7/03/2011 IN I.A.NO.3593/2011) R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1632/2011 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-07/U 3582. P2: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TOTHE PETITIONER ON 9/1/2008 VALID TILL 30/06/2011 ON THE ROUTE IRINJALAKUDA-THRISSUR. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C4/KL 7/U 3582/S/CAP-TAX/10/R OF THE RESPONDENT DTD. 21/12/2010. P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.T.A, THRISSUR DTD. 15/11/2010. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD.1/02/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 1632 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The question involved in this writ petition now stands covered by a decision of this court reported in Shiju vs. Regional Transport Officer, Thrissur (2010(3) KLJ 769). The dictum laid down in that decision is to the effect that the 1st respondent is not entitled to recover tax on the basis of the enhancement of seating capacity, with retrospective effect. Therefore on the facts of this case Ext.P3 is not sustainable and the 1st respondent is entitled to collect tax at the enhanced rate only from the date on which the new endorsement is made with respect to the enhancement of tax based on seating capacity. 2. It is contended that the vehicle is intended to be transferred in favour of the Additional 2nd respondent. It is evident from Ext.P4 that the RTA had taken a decision allowing transfer of the vehicle as well as the permit in favour of the 2nd respondent. But it is evident from Ext.P5 that the 1st respondent had refused to endorse the transfer, on the premise that the WP(C).1632/2011 2 transferee is liable for payment of the entire amount covered under Ext.P3 demand. Further contention of the petitioner is that since the 1st respondent is entitled to recover tax at the enhanced rate only with prospective rate, insistence for payment of the entire tax demanded under Ext.P3 is unsustainable. 3. Considering the dictum laid in the decision cited above, I am of the view that the demand now made is not sustainable. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take effective steps for transfer of the vehicle as well as to transfer the permit, subject to condition of the additional 2nd respondent remitting tax with prospective effect. In the result Ext.P3 to the extent it insisting payment of tax at the enhanced rate with retrospective effect is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that, the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent will be liable for payment of the tax at the enhanced rate from the date on which the necessary endorsement was made. 4. The 1st respondent is directed to effect transfer of ownership of the vehicle as well as transfer of the permit subject to condition of the 2nd respondent remitting the amount of tax WP(C).1632/2011 3 due at the enhanced rate from the date of endorsement, till the payment is made. Needless to say that the 2nd respondent will be liable for payment of any amount if ultimately found liable with respect to any previous periods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).1632/2011 4