Kerala High Court
M/S. Jet Airways (India) Limited vs Stateof Kerala on 17 February, 2017
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/28TH MAGHA, 1938
WP(C). No.9761 of 2014 (U)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
M/S. JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AIRPORT MANAGER,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. STATEOF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682030.
3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
REVENUE RECOVERY,ALUVA-682030.
4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MATTANCHERRY-682003.
5. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
6. M/S.KURUP & SONS,
TC 20/56(19) CIT ROAD, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.
R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN
R6 BY ADVS. SRI.T.I.UNNIRAJA
SRI.H.BIJU
SRI.S.BADUSHA
SRI.S.G.SREEKANTH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-02-2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.9761 of 2014 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF
VEHICLE BEARING NO KL-07-T-8764.
P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE G FORM DTD 30/6/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL SENT ON 3/8/2010 FROM THE HEAD OFFICE OF
COMPANY TO STATION MANAGER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE TRIVADRUM STATION MANAGER
OF PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19/8/2010 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 13/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO
5TH RESPONDENT.
P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO R1-536/14/MVT DTD 12/3/2014 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
P8:-TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION WITHOUT ANNEXURES FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 31/3/2014.
P9:-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.31.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
TO TRIVANDRUM AIRPORT STATIONMANAGER OF PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-NIL
----------------------------------------------
KRJ
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C) No.9761 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to have owned a vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-07/T-8764, which was being used by them as an intra-airport transport vehicle. They say, this vehicle was registered for such purpose and that it could not be used for any other purpose. According to them, this vehicle required extensive repairs and it was garaged from 1.7.2009 to 30.6.2010 and that, they have filed a valid Form-G before the authorities, as is evident from Exhibit P2. They say that subsequently, since the vehicle could not be properly repaired and had become unusable, they have scraped and sold it to the 6th respondent and that they had intimated the factum of such sale to the 5th respondent, who is the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act (for brevity, the Act), as per Exhibit P6. Their complaint is that, in spite of all this, they have now been proceeded against for recovery of motor vehicles tax for the period from 1.7.2009. The petitioner has, therefore, impugned the said demand viz., Exhibit P7 produced in this writ petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th WP(C).9761/14 -:2:- respondent Sri.T.I.Unniraja, and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5.
3. The facts are well defined in this case. It is virtually admitted that the vehicle was garaged, as evidenced by Exhibit P2 G-Form, for the period from 1.7.2009 to 30.6.2010. Obviously therefore, going by the ratio of the judgment of a Larger Bench of this Court in Jomon M. Arackal v. Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha Taluk and Others [2015 (1) KHC 1 (LB)] and a Division Bench in Nagendramani N. v. State of Kerala and Others [2015 (4) KHC 313 (DB)], no recovery is possible against the petitioner for such period. The learned Government Pleader says that, even though the G-Form says that the vehicle has been garaged inside the airport terminal, the petitioner has not been able to corroborate the same with any other document. I do not think it necessary for the petitioner to corroborate the factum of the garaging of the vehicle inside the airport terminal apart from filing a proper G-Form. Exhibit P7 notice, to the extent it demands tax for this period is, therefore, irregular and cannot be sustained.
4. As regards the further period in Exhibit P2 is concerned, the petitioner though asserts that they have sold the vehicle and scraped it subsequently, there is nothing on record to show that WP(C).9761/14 -:3:- authoritatively except an intimation that they had made to the Regional Transport Officer, as is evidenced by Exhibit P6. The authority has taken the stand that this is not sufficient and that if the petitioner was seeking cancellation of registration, he ought to have produced the registration certificate and to have followed the procedure under Section 55 of the Act. From the pleadings on record and the materials available, I do not see that the petitioner as having done this. Therefore, they cannot be entitled to now claim that they should get the benefit of Section 55 of the Act, without having followed the procedure prescribed therein.
5. I am, however, prepared to give the petitioner latitude, based on benefit of doubt, because I see that the 6th respondent also maintains that they have taken delivery of the vehicle from the petitioner and that, they have scrapped it. However, the petitioner, as I have already noticed earlier, has not been able to prove this cogently and in terms of the relevant Statutes. They certainly ought to have approached the authority at the relevant time with an application under Section 55 of the Act and to have supported it with all relevant documents and should have also followed the procedure contained therein for such relief. They having not done so, have exposed themselves to consequences. However, since it is WP(C).9761/14 -:4:- possible that the petitioner's assertion regarding the sale of the vehicle is probable, especially because of the stand taken by the 6th respondent, I think this is a case where they can be given one last chance to prove that they had sold the vehicle and scraped it before the competent authority.
6. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner, if they so advised, to make a proper application before the competent authority under the Act, viz., the 5th respondent, seeking orders under Section 55 of the Act supported by all relevant documents and if such an application is made by the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the 5th respondent uninfluenced and untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment, within a further period of one month thereafter. I also direct the 5th respondent to take a decision as afore-directed, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, even though it is not statutorily mandated to do so, but to avoid any further claim by the petitioner that there has been a violation of natural justice in such decision making.
7. I make it clear that, if there is any scheme applicable or available to the benefit of the petitioner, nothing contained herein WP(C).9761/14 -:5:- would prejudice them from availing of such benefits and the authorities will be empowered to consider the said request of the petitioner, notwithstanding the afore-directions contained in this judgment.
This writ petition is thus ordered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and direct the parties to suffer their respective costs..
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge krj.18/2