IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4897 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- SALIN JOHN, MADANI HOUSE, PULLOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE-I, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 31991 OF 2009 WPC NO. 27871 OF 2009 WPC NO. 24762 OF 2009 WPC NO. 3444 OF 2010 WPC NO. 3691 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON.J -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.C.NOs.4897 OF 2010,31991 OF 2009,27871 OF 2009,24762 OF 2009,3444 OF 2010 AND 3691 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Basic issue involved in all these cases is rather the same, as to the liability to the Tax as per the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and the Rules, particularly Rule 269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, which prescribes to pay the tax depending upon the 'wheel base' measurement in respect of the 'stage carriages' owned and operated by the petitioners. 2. In fact, the liability to satisfy the 'escaped assessment' of tax when 'short assessment' was made invoking the power u/S.26 of the above Act was considered earlier by this Court in Velayudhan v. R.T.O.Kasargod, reported in 2010 (1) KLT 565 . The contention raised by the petitioner therein, that there was no power to demand any such tax, placing reliance on Section 7, was answered by this Court holding that Section 7 was not applicable and that the power was derived from Section 26, thus answering the issue in favour of the State/Revenue. 2 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases submit that the above decision happened to be passed placing reliance on the decisions rendered by the Division Bench, however without referring to the Full Bench decision of this Court in 1998 (2) KLT 112 (Vishwanatha Menon v. Addl. Registering Authority) and hence the matters require to be considered in the light of the above verdict passed by the Full Bench. 4. On going through the Bench decision as above, it is very much obvious that the facts and circumstances involved therein are with respect to “contract carriage”, which is entirely different from the position regarding “stage carriage” as involved herein. It has been observed by the Full Bench in paragraph 11 that there are specific rules regarding the minimum number of seats to be made available in the “stage carriage” vehicle, while no such provision was brought to the notice of the Court, by either side, in the case of “contract carriages” as involved therein. The various aspects with regard to the liability to pay tax in respect of the “contract carriages”, as against the liability in respect of the “stage carriages”, have been discussed 3 in different paragraphs. The contention raised by the petitioners therein as to the alleged conflict between the Bench decisions on the point, was also taken note in paragraph 16 and it was held that there was no conflict at all. The distinction with reference to the class of the vehicles is further discernible from the discussion in para 17, 18 and 19 as well. This being the position, the Full Bench decision does not come to the rescue of the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that S.3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976, which is the charging provision, provides that tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State at the rate specified for such vehicle in the Schedule. The learned counsel also fairly conceded that 'Rule 269' the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has not been subjected to challenge in any of these petitions. The Full Bench has very much considered the relevance and scope of different provisions particularly Sections 52, 58, Rule 269 and the dictum in various Bench decisions. In view of the observations made with regard to the black and white difference with regard to “stage carriages” and 4 “contract carriages”, this Court does not find that the case of petitioners can be brought within the purview of the benefit extended by the full Bench to the persons who own and operate “contract carriages”. There are no tenable grounds/reasons to interfere with the matter, particularly as to the observations and finding in 2010 (1) KLT 565. The Writ Petitions fail and they are dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,JUDGE. pm