IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24705 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PADMAVATHY AMMA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, THEKKENADU HOUSE, P.O.THIRUVANIYOOR, CHEMMAMCHERRY, QUILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (TAXATION), QUILANDY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.24705 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 Memo issued by the respondent demanding Motor Vehicle Tax with respect to vehicle No:KL-07/C 3792, for the period from 1.10.07 to 30.6.2009. The vehicle in question is a Tempo Traveller which is in the possession of the petitioner. According to the petitioner the registered owner of the vehicle is one Sri.Subhash M.K. and she had purchased the vehicle from Sri.Subhash during September 2006, after obtaining Ext.P1 Clearance Certificate from the Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode. In Ext.P1 it is certified that the tax due upto 30.9.06 with respect to the vehicle stands cleared payment. It is evident from Ext.P2 Memo that the Motor Vehicle Tax is now demanded for the subsequent periods. Contention of the petitioner is that in Ext.P2 Memo tax is demanded at the rates prescribed for 'Transport Vehicles', whereas the vehicle in question is not having any permit during the said period as evidenced by Ext.P1, and therefore it has to be treated as a 'Non Transport Vehicle (NTV)' for the purpose of assessment of Tax. 2. However, on receipt of Ext.P2 the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 objections raising the above said contentions. W.P.(C).24705/09 2 Therefore the liability in this regard need be adjudicated by the respondent, based on the contentions in Ext.P3. Complaint of the petitioner is that without there being any adjudication and decision arrived on the dispute raised, the respondent is now taking steps for recovering the Tax amount, demanded as per Ext.P2. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Government Pleader for respondent. It is submitted that for the purpose of taxation, vehicles having seating capacity not more than 7 in all alone is treated as a Motor Car (NTV). But the vehicle which is a contract carriage having seating capacity of 15 in all, cannot be treated as 'Non Transport Vehicle'. This position is disputed by the petitioner. Hence it is all the more necessary to have an adjudication on the issue. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the objections submitted by the petitioner under Ext.P3 and to take a decision thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent shall pass an order with reasonings on the matter as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Steps for recovery if any taken shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the respondent as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb