IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31837 of 2009(Y) -- ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ JOACHIN PEREIRA,S/O.PEREIRA, VIOLET VIHAR,OPPOSITE MUSEUM BEJOY, MANGALORE. BY ADV. MR.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL MS.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KASARAGOD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ================== WP (C).No. 31837 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner is the owner of stage carriage vehicle, bearing registration No.KA-19/AB-657, covered with an inter- state permit on the route Manjeshwar-Mangalore. It is stated that pursuant to prohibitory orders issued as per Ext.P1 and P2, by the Karnataka State Road Transport Authority, the petitioner was directed to stop operation of the vehicle and to surrender the permit, from 05/05/2009 onwards. Thereafter, through Ext.P6 decision taken by the said authority, the vehicle of the petitioner as well as similarly situated vehicles were permitted to revive operations. In the meanwhile, with respect to the period during which the vehicle was kept idle, petitioner submitted intimations about the non-use, to the second respondent, as evidenced by Ext.P3 to P5, is the contention of the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering Ext.P3 to P5 Ext.P7 Demand Notice is now issued requesting payment of Motor Vehicle Tax due with respect to the period from 01/04/2009 to 30/09/2009. The petitioner was requested either WP (C).No. 31837 of 2009 2 to pay the amount or state reasons for non-payment of tax, within seven days. According to the petitioner, Ext.P8 reply was submitted to the second respondent seeking to review the liability on the basis that the vehicle was kept idle and intimation was given to that effect, as evidenced by Ext.P3 to P5. It is further stated that copies of such intimations were also produced along with Ext.P8. It is contended by the petitioner that exemption was granted in similar other cases and in the case of the petitioner the second respondent is not considering Ext.P8, and coercive steps are now being threatened for realisation of the tax. It is also submitted that due to the pending demand for the alleged arrears, the second respondent is not accepting tax due in the current quarter and the petitioner is put to difficulty, and he is prevented from plying the vehicle on the strength of the existing permit. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents on the basis of instructions submitted that the petitioner had not submitted any claim for exemption in the prescribed format of Form-G. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when there is evidence regarding non-operation of the vehicle, the WP (C).No. 31837 of 2009 3 claim for exemption need not be submitted in the format prescribed, as it is as held by this court in various decisions. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances, I notice that Ext.P7 is a Demand Notice whereby the petitioner was either directed to pay the tax or to state reasons for non-payment. It is evident that Ext.P8 was submitted in reply to Ext.P7 Demand Notice. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the matter need adjudication at the hands of the second respondent, who has to consider the question whether the petitioner was applied for exemption for payment of tax with respect to the disputed period. Hence, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the matter and to take a decision on the basis of Ext.P8. 4. In the result, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P8 and to dispose of the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to finalise the liability regarding payment of the tax for the period under dispute, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. WP (C).No. 31837 of 2009 4 5. The petitioner had a further prayer to issue a direction to the second respondent to accept tax due for the current quarter and to permit operation of the vehicle, till finalisation of the dispute as directed above. Considering the fact that the amount demanded with respect to the disputed period has not been paid, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be directed to furnish bank guarantee for the amount in dispute. On the petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee as stated above, tax for the current quarter with respect to the vehicle shall be accepted, provided there are no other arrears pertaining to any other period. In such case, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the vehicle on the second respondent making necessary endorsement in the registration particulars regarding the liability. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE nl