K. Harilal, J.

The question, which had been considered by the learned single Judge, in a batch of cases, including all the writ petitions, from which these writ appeals arose was, whether the petitioners herein, who satisfied the 'One-time Tax' under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'MVT Act') at the prescribed rate, on the purchase value computed as inclusive of the VAT element as well, as part of it, are entitled to have refund of the alleged excess payment, in view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court as per the decision reported in Fathima Shirin Vs. Joint Regional Transport Officer, (2013) 4 ILR (Ker) 92 : (2013) 3 KHC 714 : (2013) 3 KLT 945 : (2014) 70 VST 248, holding that the term 'purchase value' defined under Section 2(e) of the MVT Act means only the invoice price of the vehicle, which does not include Value Added Tax paid or payable.

2. This question had been mooted from the identical facts and the same reliefs sought for, in all the writ petitions. The common facts, necessary for the determination of these writ appeals, are encapsulated below:

All the appellants are the purchasers of luxury cars of differe