IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 22498 of 2006(C) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MRS. DEEPA P.N. W/O.SUMESH.T. DEVAKI HOUSE, MAYANAD P.O. CALICUT. 2. ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF AUTOMOTIVE GAS CONVERSION DEALERS, S.NO. 365/2002, C/O.CHIRAMEL AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 20, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, C.A.BABU. BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.A.K.PREETHA SMT.BINDHYA JOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.22498/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL-11 X 3273. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R8/2523/96D DT.9.8.2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22498 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The 1st petitioner is the registered owner of a Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.KL-11 X 3273. The 2nd petitioner is an association of Automotive Gas Conversion Dealers. Its members are persons who fit conversion kits in cars, so that they can use Liquefied Petroleum Gas instead of petrol. The unladen weight of the 1st petitioner's vehicle at the time of registration of it was 730 kgs. She fitted an LPG kit for the said vehicle. Thereupon, the unladen weight increased to 780 kgs. The rate of payment of motor vehicles tax for the 1st petitioner's vehicle is covered by a notification issued by the Government under the proviso to Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. As per the said notification, the one time tax for a car, the unladen weight of which is more than 750 kgs, is Rs.18,800/-. If it is not more than 750 kgs, it is only Rs.14,000/-. So, at the time of registration, the 1st petitioner paid Rs.14,000/- as one time tax. After the LPG kit was fixed on 9.8.2006, the 1st petitioner become liable to pay Rs.4.800/- also in view of section 7 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. So, the taxation officer demanded W.P.(C) No.22498/2006 2 payment of additional tax as per Ext.P2 communication dated 9.8.2006. The 1st petitioner challenges the demand as per Ext.P2. Since the said demand is fully supported by Section 7 of the Act, the petitioners have chosen to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 7 also. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition supporting the impugned demand. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act reads as follows: “7. Payment of additional tax: When any motor vehicle in respect of which tax has been paid is altered, used or proposed to be used, in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable, the registered owner or the person having possession of control of such vehicle shall pay an additional tax of sum equal to the difference between the tax already paid and the tax which is payable in respect of such vehicle for the period for which the higher rate of tax is payable in consequence of its being so altered or used or proposed to be used, and the licensing officer shall not grant a fresh tax licence in respect of such vehicle so altered or used or proposed to be used until such amount of tax has been paid.” 4. Going by the above provision in the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the demand made under Ext.P2 for payment of W.P.(C) No.22498/2006 3 balance tax is fully justified. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said provision is highly arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners under article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel also points out that in all other States, the tax is demanded not with reference to the weight of the vehicle but based on the value of the vehicle. The said system has been introduced in this State also, recently. So, the demand of tax with reference to the unladen weight is arbitrary, it is submitted. 5. It is well settled that motor vehicles tax is levied and collected as a compensatory tax for using the roads laid and maintained by the State from public funds. The road will be affected more by the use of heavy vehicles. So, the demand of tax with reference to weight of the vehicle is fair and reasonable. So, the challenge against Section 7 on the ground that the same offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India is plainly untenable. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps