Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Joshi A.Chemparathy vs The Joint Regional Transport Officer on 19 June, 1992

       

  

  

 
 
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT:

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

       MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/12TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

                     WP(C).No. 27274 of 2009 (D)
                      ---------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
-------------

         JOSHI A.CHEMPARATHY, S/O.AUGUSTINE,
         CHEMPARANTHICAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA.

         BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN
                 SRI.PRAVEEN HARIHARAN

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

     1.  THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
         THODUPUZHA.

     2.  STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
         PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT,
         SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

         BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL
         BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD  ON
       03-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 27274 of 2009 (D)

                               APPENDIX




PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:


P1:  COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-38-4980.


P2:  COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O.451(E) DATED 19.06.1992 ISSUED BY THE
     GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.


P3:  COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 1.09.2009
     BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.


P4:  COPY OF THE SCHEDULE ATTACHED TO THE KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLE
     TAXATION ACT RELATING TO COLLECTION OF TAX FOR CAMPERS VAN AND
     SIMILAR OTHER VEHICLES.



RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:      NIL




                            //TRUE COPY//



                            P.A. TO JUDGE



ds



                      ANTONY DOMINIC,J
                --------------------------------
                   W.P.(C)No.27274 of 2009
             -------------------------------------
          Dated this the 03rd day of December, 2012

                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the registered owner of a Tempo Traveler Van bearing registration No.KL38-4980. Originally the vehicle was registered as a contract carriage and tax was paid on that basis. Interior of the vehicle has been modified and the petitioner converted the vehicle as a campers van. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation to the first respondent requesting for rescheduling of the structure applicable to campers van in view of the changed use of the vehicle and response was not forthcoming. Therefore, he filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

i. To direct the 2nd respondent to enact suitable amendment to KMV Taxation Act to include Campers Van also within the purview of the said Act.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the 1st W.P.(C).No.27274 of 2009 : 2 : respondent to collect motor vehicle tax applicable for Omni Bus for Private use; iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the 1st respondent to effect change of type of vehicle No.KL-38-4980 as campers van.

2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent contending interalia that the vehicle in question is an 18 seater vehicle and that a campers van can only be one meant for carriage of passengers and their luggage and comprising not more than 8 seats in addition to the driver's seat. It is also stated that the alteration of the vehicle is in violation of Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. As far as the anxiety of reduction in the tax rate on account of the reduction in the seating capacity is concerned, that is a matter which has already been addressed by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Vishwanatha Menon v. Addl. Registering Authority W.P.(C).No.27274 of 2009 : 3 : (1998(2) KLT 112), where it was held that irrespective of reduction in the number of seats, liability of the registered owner is to continue payment of tax at the original seating capacity, in accordance with the permit issued. Insofar as the applicability of Section 52 is concerned, counsel for the petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jayachandran v. Regional Transport Officer(2012(4) KLT 729), where it has been held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder does not totally prohibit.

4. As already seen what is essentially sought for by the petitioner is a modification of schedule to the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Such a modification is a legislative exercise. It is true that the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court, the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, which contains a specific entry providing for tax in respect of camper vans. However, even that fact does not entitle W.P.(C).No.27274 of 2009 : 4 : this Court to direct that legislation be done much less in any particular manner. On the other hand, in a situation of this nature, all that this Court can justifiably do is to call upon the second respondent, to consider the requirement of making modification to the schedule to the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act on par with the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 by providing suitable entries to camper vans, both used for hire and also for private use. A decision in this regard shall be taken in the light of the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Vishwanatha Menon v. Addl. Registering Authority(1998(2) KLT 112) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jayachandran v. Regional Transport Officer(2012(4) KLT 729). Such a decision shall be taken at any rate, within within six months of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition and the judgments that are referred to above.

W.P.(C).No.27274 of 2009 : 5 :

5. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment and and other documents before the first respondent for compliance.

Till such time, the interim order passed by this Court on 17/12/2009, will remain in force.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln