Kerala High Court
Venkatakrishnan vs The State Transport Authority on 25 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)KLT252
Author: K. Padmanabhan Nair
Bench: K. Padmanabhan Nair
JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, J.
1. These appeals are filed against a common judgment in O.P. Nos. 17489 of 1999 and 5070 of 2000. W.A.No.623 of 2000 arises out of O.P. No. 17489 of 1999 and W.A. No. 625 of 2000 arises out of O.P. No. 5070 of 2000. Both the Original Petitions were filed by the same person, A. Venkatakrishnan, and the appeals also are filed by him.
2. The appellant was the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No. PY.01/H.7227 operating an inter-State service between Mahe and Guruvayoor (via) Kozhikode and Kuttippuram. The said inter-State permit granted in respect of the said vehicle is valid upto 5.1.2004. The said vehicle was registered in Pondicherry. The appellant submitted an application for replacement of the vehicle with a new vehicle bearing registration No. PY.03/2655 registered in Mahe. The State Transport Authority, Pondicherry allowed replacement as per Exts.P3 and P4 dated 29.6.1999. Thereafter as per Ext.P5 order dated 30.6.1999 the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram accorded sanction for the countersignature of replacement of vehicle PY.01/H.7227 by vehicle PY.03/2655 on single point tax basis to operate service on the inter-State route Mahe - Guruvayoor (via) Kozhikode and Kuttipuram for the portion lying in Kerala State. The replacement was countersigned by the Secretary, S.T.A., Thiruvananthapuram and the records were forwarded to the Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode for necessary action. Ext.P6 dated 30.6.1999 is the copy of the endorsement of countersignature of replacement of the vehicle. However, as per Ext.P7 letter dated 5.7.1999 the R.T.O., Kozhikode sought some clarification from the Secretary, S.T.A., Thiruvananthapuram. In Ext.P7 letter the R.T.O., Kozhikode pointed out that in the order dated 30.6.1999 the Secretary, S.T.A., Thiruvananthapuram had stated that the stage carriage PY.01/H.7227 was covered by regular permit valid upto 5.1.2004 to ply on the inter-State route Mahe - Guruvayoor on single point tax basis and that on verification of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle it was found that the said vehicle was not enjoying free tax concession in the State of Kerala and that the tax was seen paid upto 30.6.1999 in respect of the said vehicle. In other words, the R.T.O., Kozhikode pointed out that the outgoing vehicle was not operating on single point tax basis. At that stage the appellant filed O.P. No. 17489 of 1999 praying for a direction to the R.T.O., Kozhikode to implement Ext.P5 order dated 30.6.1999 of the Secretary, S.T.A., Thiruvananthapuram. He also prayed for a declaration that his vehicle bearing registration No. PY.03/2655 is entitled to get tax exemption as provided in Government notification S.R.O. 878/75.
3. Pursuant to the clarification sought by R.T.O., Kozhikode as per his letter dated 5.7.1999, the Secretary, S.T.A., Thiruvananthapuram as per his letter No. E1/1/STA/ 99 dated 12.7.1999 clarified that in his proceedings dated 30.6.1999 it was erroneously mentioned that the outgoing vehicle (PY.01/H.7227) was operating on single point tax basis and that actually the tax was paid in the State of Kerala in respect of the said vehicle. It was further clarified that such an erroneous statement was made due to a clerical mistake and that tax must be levied in respect of stage carriage bearing registration PY.03/2655. It was also stated that stage carriage PY.03/2655 is not eligible to enjoy the free tax endorsement in Kerala State.
4. During the pendency of O.P. 17489 of 1999, the appellant filed O.P. 5070 of 2000 challenging an order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode informing the appellant that his request for refund of tax in respect of stage carriage PY.03/2655 for the month of June, 1999 could not be entertained and that the proportionate tax collected in respect of stage carriage PY.03/2655 for the month of June, 1999 was in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and the Rules thereunder.
5. Both O.P. 17489 of 1999 and O.P. 5070 of 2000 were disposed of on 2nd March, 2000 through a common judgment. The learned Single Judge did not consider or decide the claims of the appellant on merits. After noting the clarification given by the Secretary, S.T.A., Thiruvananthapuram through his letter No. E1/1/STA/99 dated 12.7.1999 and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said clarification was issued without notice to the appellant and without giving him an opportunity to explain his position, the learned Single Judge held that it is for the appellant to file revision/application before the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram for passing fresh orders with notice and opportunity to him. Accordingly, it was directed that if any such application is filed by the appellant and if the 4th respondent finds that the clarification was issued without notice to the appellant, the 4th respondent will consider the application on merits and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. Aggrieved by the said common judgment, these appeals have been filed.
6. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even though the appellant had claimed exemption from paying tax in the Kerala State on the basis of Clause 24 of S.R.O. 878/75 issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the said claim was not considered by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel points out that while issuing the alleged clarification, even the Secretary, S.T.A. Thiruvananthapuram had not considered whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the said Clause 24 of S.R.O. 878/75. According to the learned counsel, the Secretary, S.T.A. Thiruvananthapuram refused to grant exemption to the appellant from paying tax in Kerala State solely on the ground that the old vehicle which was substituted by the new vehicle was not enjoying the said exemption. It is contended that the old vehicle was registered at Pondicherry and, therefore, the said vehicle was not entitled to the benefit of exemption provided under Clause 24 of S.R.O. 878/75, whereas, the new vehicle was registered at the Mahe and, therefore, the new vehicle is entitled to the said benefit.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader, we find that it is not disputed that the new vehicle PY.03/2655 was registered at Mahe as evidenced by Ext.P2 in O.P. No. 17489 of 1999. It is also not disputed that vehicle PY.01/H.7227 was allowed to be substituted by vehicle PY.03/2655 to operate on the inter-State route Mahe-Guruvayoor (via) Kozhikode and Kuttippuram. Clause 24 of S.R.O.878/75 issued under Section 22 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Ordinance, 1975 reads thus:-
"24. All Stage Carriages, Goods Vehicles and Contract Carriages which are registered in Mahe (Union Territory of Pondicherry) and operating on routes or in areas, as the case may be, lying partly in Mahe and partly in the State of Kerala subject to the condition that:-
(i) the permit of the vehicle so registered is countersigned for operation in Kerala by competent Transport Authority and the permit is current;
(ii) the vehicle operates only on the route or area as the case may be covered by counter signature, and
(iii) that the tax due on the vehicle under the rules in force as applicable to Mahe has been paid in full in Pondicherry State;
Provided that the expression "registered in Mahe (Union Territory of Pondicherry)" shall include a motor vehicle continuing to have the registration mark of another State for the maximum period allowed under Section 29 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939) and the rules made thereunder".
Thus, as per Clause 24 extracted above, a stage carriage registered in Mahe and operating on routes or in areas, as the case may be, lying partly in Mahe and partly in the State of Kerala is exempted from payment of tax payable under the said Ordinance subject to the condition that the permit of the vehicle is countersigned for operation in Kerala by competent Transport Authority and the permit is current, the vehicle operates only on the route or area covered by countersignature and the tax due on the vehicle under the rules in force as applicable to Mahe has been paid in full in Pondicherry State. Admittedly the appellant's stage carriage bearing registration No. PY.03/2655 was registered at Mahe. As per the permit, it has to operate on a route lying partly in Mahe and partly in the State of Kerala. The permit of the vehicle has been countersigned for operation in Kerala by the competent Transport Authority, namely State Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The permit is current and is valid upto 5.1.2004. There is no case for the respondents that the vehicle operates on a route other than the route covered by countersignature or that the tax due on the vehicle under the rules in force as applicable to Mahe has not been paid. In the above circumstances, the appellant's vehicle PY.03/2655 is entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of tax payable under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Ordinance in terms of Clause 24 of S.R.O.878/75 referred above.
8. The only objection pointed out by the learned Government Pleader is that the existing vehicle which is substituted by the vehicle PY.03/2655 was not enjoying the abovementioned benefit and, therefore, the new vehicle also cannot be given the said benefit. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the existing vehicle was registered at Pondicherry and, therefore, it was not eligible for exemption under Clause 24, whereas, the new vehicle was registered at Mahe and, therefore, it is eligible for exemption. The learned Government Pleader could not point out any provision either in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 or in the Rules made thereunder which stipulates that only if the existing vehicle enjoyed the benefit of tax exemption the new vehicle substituting the old vehicle will get the benefit of tax exemption even if the new vehicle satisfies all the conditions mentioned in Clause 24 of S.R.O.878/75. In the absence of any such stipulation, the respondents cannot deny to the appellant the benefit of tax exemption under Clause 24 of S.R.O.878/75 in respect of stage carriage PY.03/2655.
9. In view of the above legal position, the Writ Appeals are liable to be allowed. Hence, the Writ Appeals are disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) The impugned judgment in O.P. Nos. 17489 of 1999 and 5070 of 2000 is set aside.
(ii) Prayer (iii) in O.P. 17489 of 1999 is allowed and it is declared that the appellant's vehicle bearing registration No. PY.03/2655 is entitled to get tax exemption as provided in Clause 24 of the Government Notification S.R.O.878/75.
(iii) Ext.P6 in O.P.5070 of 2000(LetterNo.C2/39215/99D.dated4.12.1999 of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode) is quashed and the Secretary, R.T.A., Kozhikode is directed to reconsider the application of the appellant for refund of tax in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No. PY.03/2655 for the month of June, 1999 in accordance with law and in the light of this judgment.
(iv) The respondents are directed to issue a tax free endorsement for the appellant's vehicle bearing registration No. PY.03/2655 in the light of this judgment.