IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27973 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIYAS, S/O. YOUSEF, THURUTHIKAPPALLY HOUSE, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (TAXATION), ALAPPUZHA. BYG.P. SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 27973 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondent to accept motor vehicles tax with respect to the vehicle belonging to the petitioner bearing No.KL-05/M 5524 due for the quarter ending on 30-9-2010, without insisting for, payment of additional tax and production of no objection certificate from the Welfare Fund Authority. 2. According to the petitioner, in a writ petition filed earlier, this Court had stayed recovery of the amount of contributions due from the petitioner to the Welfare Fund, for a period of 45 days from 16-8-2010. Ext.P2 is the judgment in that case, from which it is evident that the petitioner was granted a period of 45 days for effecting payment of the contributions due. It is submitted that the last date due for remitting tax with for the quarter ending on 30-6-2010 was on 26-8-2010. According to the petitioner, even though Ext.P3 Demand Draft, which was taken on 13-8-2010, was intended W.P.(C) No. 27973/2010 2 towards payment of tax, but the respondent had refused to accept the same, insisting on the petitioner for production of no-objection certificate from the Welfare Fund Board. It is contended that in view of Ext.P2 judgment, the insistence for production of no-objection certificate was unreasonable and unjustifiable. It is further contended that since the petitioner had already tendered payment before the due date, demand for additional tax is also not justifiable. 3. Noticing the relief granted in Ext.P2 judgment, I am of the opinion that complaint of the petitioner deserves consideration. Since the period for payment of the contributions stipulated in Ext.P2 has not expired, I am of the opinion that the motor vehicles tax need be accepted without insisting production of no-objection certificate. It is also evident that the petitioner had taken Demand Draft before the due date itself. Therefore, it is only just and proper to exempt him from the liability of payment of additional tax. 4.Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to receive tax due with W.P.(C) No. 27973/2010 3 respect to the vehicle bearing No.KL-05/M 5524 for the quarter ending on 30-9-2010, if the petitioner produces Ext.P3 Demand Draft towards such payment, within a period of one week from today. It is also directed that if payment of tax is made as stated above, the same shall be accepted without insisting production of no objection certificate from the Welfare Fund Authority and also without insisting for payment of additional tax. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.