Important points:
Any registering authority could make an order of cancellation. But the certificate of registration and the entry relating to the vehicle in its records can be cancelled only by the original registering authority.

JUDGMENT :

Shaffique, J.

These appeals have been filed by the officers of the State challenging judgment of the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petitions filed by party respondents by issuing the following directions:-

"37. As a result of my above discussion I summarise my judgment on the issues noted above as follows:

(a) Section 3(6) of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 is within the competence of State legislature and Section 3(6) is not in any manner repugnant to Chapter IV of Motor Vehicles' Act, 1988 or ultra vires Act 1976. Section 3(6) therefore is valid and legal.

(b) The registration of a non-transport vehicle and payment of registration fee under Act 1988 or payment of motor vehicle tax under a State legislature continues to be valid so long as the vehicle is kept and used in the State in which it is registered. These vehicles if enter State of Kerala and stay beyond the period stipulated by the State enactment, the vehicle is required to pay vehicle tax as per Section 3(6) read with Annexure III of Schedule of Act 1976.

(c) The impugned orders calling upon the petitioners to register the subject vehicles in State of Kerala and pay life tax are set aside as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, the matters are restored to the file of respective Regional Transport Officer/ respondents for consideration and disposal by keeping in view the principles stated supra.

(d) The writ petitions filed challenging show cause notices are given four weeks' time from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment to file objections against proposed tax levy and are entitled to show that, firstly, the vehicle is not kept for use in State of Kerala beyond thirty days and, alternatively, vehicle is not at all used or kept for use in State of Kerala. The objection raised against proposed action is examined in detail and orders as are warranted by the circumstances of the case are passed. Respondents keeping in view the scope, character and purpose of incidence of vehicle tax, consider the objections and pass detailed orders, in all the matters now restored to file as well as where time is granted for filing objections to show cause notice.”

After a common judgment was delivered in WP(C) No. 33231/2018 and connected cases, similar matters were disposed of on the basis of the said judgment.

2. A batch of appeals came up for hearing and in matters where service has been complete, we heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. We have also requested the learned counsel appearing in other cases in which the appeals were being filed, and in cases where service of notice are not complete, to address their arguments as well.

3. The factual aspects involved in these matters are short. The writ petitioners are persons who had purchased their vehicles from the Union territory of Puducherry. Alleging that those vehicles are plying in the State of Kerala, steps were taken by the respective Regional Transport Authorities in the State to cancel their registration. Notices in that regard had been issued by the Regional Transport Authorities to the writ petitioners and to conduct an enquiry in that regard which came to be challenged in separate writ petitions. According to the Regional Transport Authorities, the petitioners had produced false and fabricated documents to register the vehicles at Puducherry and the vehicles were not normally kept at Puducherry whereas the vehicles are normally kept in the State of Kerala. It is the contention of the State that the intention of the petitioners is only to evade payment of motor vehicles tax at the time of registration as provided under Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as 'the Taxation Act'). In the process, petitioners also challenged Section 3(6) of the Taxation Act.

4. The learned Single Judge while rejecting the challenge to Section 3(6) of the Taxation Act, held that the impugned orders calling upon the petitioners to register the vehicles in t