Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Dr.Shine Ashokan Frcs on 8 November, 2016
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/23RD PHALGUNA, 1938
WA.No. 429 of 2017 IN WP(C).31627/2012
----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31627/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 08-11-2016
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC.:
------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
TRANS TOWERS, MASCRENE LANE,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA-695 014.
3. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
O/O DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
CENTRAL ZONE-1, TC 50/789, OPP. CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE PO, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.
4. THE JOINT RTO, IRINJALAKUDA
SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
MINI CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR, PIN-680 121.
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.RAVEENDRANATH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC:
-----------------------------
DR.SHINE ASHOKAN FRCS
S/O.ASHOKAN, RESIDING AT MANAKKUNNATH HOUSE,
IRINJALAKUDA PO, THRISSUR-680 125.
R BY SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No.429 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
Heard the Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The respondent imported a motor car as per Bill of Entry dated 1.8.2012. The Customs Department assessed the value of the vehicle at Rs.8,15,605/- and he paid duty thereon. He was called upon to pay Motor Vehicle Tax in terms of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 at 15% of the amount quantified in terms of 2(e) of the Act. That was challenged before the statutory authorities unsuccessfully. It was this issue, which was raised in the writ petition. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge, directed that the appellants' liability shall be confined to 40% of 15% of the purchase value of the vehicle prescribed in Annexure I of the Act. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.
W.A.No.429 of 2017
: 2 :
3. Having heard the counsel for both sides and considering the submissions, we find that levy of tax is as provided for in Section 3 of the Act, which orders that (i) subject to the provisions of the Act, on and from the date of commencement thereof, a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State, at the rate of specified for such vehicle in the Schedule. The rate prescribed is in Annexure I of the Act, insofar as it is relevant which is 15% of the purchase value of the vehicle vide item 12 thereof. Purchase value is defined in Section 2e as under:
2(e) Purchase value, means the value of the vehicle as shown in the purchase invoice and includes value added tax, cess and customs/excise duty chargeable on vehicle:
Provided the discount or rebate given by the dealer to the registered owner shall not be deducted from the bill amount for computing the purchase value:
Provided further that where the purchase value of any vehicle including a vehicle improted from other countries or a vehicle acquired or obtained otherwise than by way of purchase, is not ascertainable on account of non availability of the invoice, the purchase value shall be the value or price of the vehicles of the W.A.No.429 of 2017 : 3 : same specifications which are already registered or available with the manufacturer or as fixed by the Customs and Central Excise Department for the purpose of levying customs duty, and includes excise or customs duty levyed on the purchase of a motor vehicle, as the case may be.
4. A reading of the aforesaid Act and the provisions would show that Motor Vehicle Tax is to be paid on the purchase value as defined in Section 2(e) and the rate of tax is 15% of the purchase value. Act does not provide any discount on either the purchase price or levy of tax. However, learned counsel for the appellant referred us to the table, under Annexure I prescribing percentage of one time tax payable under the Annexure, depending upon the age of vehicle from the month of its original registration. According to him, if the said table is made applicable, the method adopted by the learned Single Judge is perfectly illegal.
5. However, we cannot accept the contention regarding applicability of the table because it is confined to the types of motor vehicles which are enumerated under items 13B to 13F of W.A.No.429 of 2017 : 4 : the Annexure. Insofar as the vehcile imported by the appellant is concerned, the applicability of Annexure is item 12. In other words, table now relied on by the learned counsel has no relevance.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to accept the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the judgment under appeal is set aside.
Appeal is allowed.
sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jes