Kerala High Court
Mohammed Shan vs The Joint Regional Transport Officer on 22 October, 2019
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941
WP(C).No.12286 OF 2019(I)
PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED SHAN,
AGED 36 YEARS
THERUVIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SHAN NIVAS, ELAMAKKARA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SMT. MAZNA MANSOOR
SRI.M.V.BOSE
SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN
RESPONDENT:
THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NORTH PARUR - 683 513.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.M.JASMINE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.12286/19 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who purchased a Corolla Altis vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-42-K-4555, has approached this Court aggrieved by the demand for differential one time tax from him in respect of the said vehicle, for the period commencing from the date of purchase of the vehicle by him till the expiry of the 15 year period from the date of initial registration of the vehicle. The demand against the petitioner is in a sum of Rs.1,02,070/-. It is not in dispute that the said amount has been paid by the petitioner under protest during the pendency of this Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the one time tax in respect of the vehicle was discharged in terms of the second proviso to Section 3(1) at the rate of 6% as applicable to tourist motor cabs having capacity below 1500 CC and having purchase value upto Rs.10 lakhs. Apparently, the original purchaser of the vehicle had registered the same as a tourist motor cab and paid the one time tax at the rate of 6% of the purchase value of the vehicle, as applicable to tourist motor cabs. Thereafter, and after using it for three years, the vehicle was sold to the petitioner who, admittedly, is not using the vehicle as a tourist motor cab. It is nevertheless the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has not used the vehicle as a tourist motor cab, the levy of one time tax can only be in respect of a new vehicle and, inasmuch as what the petitioner purchased was a used vehicle, the differential tax cannot be levied from the petitioner. Alternatively, it is contended that even if a differential tax is to be collected, it cannot be based on the original price of the vehicle, but should be on a depreciated price considering the earlier use to which the vehicle was put. W.P(C) No.12286/19 3 Reliance is also placed on a clarification circular No.2/2014 dated 10.03.2014 of the Transport Commissioner wherein the components that would go into the computation of purchase value for the purposes of levy of one time tax is clarified by the Transport Commissioner.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the stand taken is that the vehicle in question was registered as a motor cab at the Sub Regional Transport Officer at North Parur on 17.03.2015 and as per Annexure-A to the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, one time tax was paid for the period of 15 years at the rate of 6% of the purchase value at the time of registration. It is stated that the vehicle was then transferred to the petitioner and the class of vehicle was altered to a motor car with effect from 21.8.2018. Consequently, the tax liability for the purposes of one time tax changed from 6% to 15% of the purchase value of the vehicle. It is the differential tax applicable to the vehicle, for the period after its purchase by the petitioner, that has been demanded from the petitioner.
3. A reply affidavit has been filed refuting the averments in the statement filed on behalf of the respondents.
4. I have heard Smt.Mazna Mansoor P.M., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that as per the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, in respect of new W.P(C) No.12286/19 4 motor vehicles, inter alia of the classes specified in items 7(1)(c) and 11(1) of the schedule to the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, there has to be levied, from the date of purchase of the vehicle, one time tax at the rates specified in Annexure-I at the time of first registration of the vehicle. The said one time tax liability in respect of the vehicle in question was discharged by the previous owner on the basis of the categorisation of the vehicle as a motor cab under item 7(1)(c) of the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Three years later, when the petitioner purchased the vehicle, he did not continue to use it as a motor cab, but chose to use it as a private vehicle and thereby the classification of the vehicle changed to that under item 11(1) of the Schedule. As a consequence, the rate of one time tax under Annexure-I changed from 6% to 15%. The differential tax at the rate of 9% on the purchase value of the vehicle was therefore demanded from the petitioner for the remainder of the period of 15 years (11 years) and this amount has since been paid by the petitioner.
6. I do not find any infirmity in the said collection of tax from the petitioner. The demand for tax from the petitioner has to be seen as one for the differential tax payable in respect of the vehicle, which was not paid at the time of initial assessment of the vehicle to one time tax. In effect, therefore, the petitioner is only discharging the liability that would have accrued to the erstwhile owner of the vehicle in whose hands the one time tax (for a fifteen year period) was assessed at the time of first registration of the vehicle. Since the differential tax liability discharged by the petitioner is one that would have otherwise accrued to the original purchaser of the vehicle, had the change in the classification of the vehicle from motor cab to a private vehicle within the period of 15 years since the date of registration, occurred W.P(C) No.12286/19 5 when he had ownership of the vehicle, the petitioner cannot escape from his liability to discharge the same, for there arises a statutory charge over the vehicle for unpaid tax. Further, in the computation of differential tax, the concept of depreciation does not apply. The liability to tax being one that arose at the time of first registration of the vehicle, the demand of differential tax must also relate to that point in time, and must be seen as one arising consequent to the non-compliance with the condition of using the vehicle as a tourist motor cab for the entire period of 15 years, for which use alone the concessional rate of tax was envisaged. Thus, I do not find any merit in the averments in the Writ Petition and, for the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
okb
//True copy// P.S. to Judge
W.P(C) No.12286/19 6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-42-
K-4555, BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE, IN THE NAME OF
THE SAID SANU M S.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.VSE/14-
15/1027, DATED 24/02/2015, ISSUED IN FAVOUR
OF MR.SANY BY THE DEALER ON PURCHASE OF THE
VEHICLE BEARING CHASSIS NUMBER
MBJ53NEH004002652-1114.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGED TAX DUES NOTED
BY THE SUPERINTENDENT IN THE OFFICE OF THE
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO
VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-42-K-
1500.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 09/04/2019
ISSUED TO THE WRIT PETITIONER BY THE
DEPARTMENT ON REMITTANCE OF THE AMOUNT
DEMANDED.