Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36515
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
RAMKUMAR V. – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, – Respondent
WP(C)/27351/2020
P.DEEPAK, SMT.M.M.JASMIN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Non-payment of motor vehicles tax must be rectified for valid permit holders seeking vehicle replacement under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Replacement - Motor Vehicles - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 83 - The court emphasized that a valid permit is necessary for vehicle replacement and non-payment of tax obligations can hinder replacement applications, requiring payment before considering such requests.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to replace a stage carriage vehicle while owing motor vehicle tax. The authority rejected the application due to tax arrears and non-compliance with payment schedules, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that while the petitioner failed to produce the vehicle or pay taxes, it recognized the need to afford an opportunity for tax settlement due to extraordinary circumstances during the pandemic, allowing for a reconsideration of the replacement application.
Issues: Whether the failure to pay motor vehicle tax prohibits the replacement of a vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A valid permit holder must have paid all due taxes to qualify for vehicle replacement under Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, granting the petitioner a chance to pay tax arrears for vehicle replacement.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is aggrieved by non-consideration of his application for replacement of a stage carriage. He also seeks for the relief of reschedulement of the date for remittance of instalments of motor vehicles tax, granted as per Ext.P7 proceedings.
2. Petitioner has a regular permit for plying a stage carriage through the route Kozhikode-Thengilakadavu-Mavoor, issued on 06.12.2016, for the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11-R-1824. The validity of the said permit will expire on 31.12.2021. While so, on 03.07.2020, petitioner requested for replacement of the vehicle under section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act')
with another stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-58-H-1948.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent, who is the competent authority to consider the application for replacement of the vehicle, refused to consider petitioner's application, on the ground that the motor vehicles tax due in respect of the vehicle sought to be replaced for the period from
01.01.2019 to 31.03.2020 was in arrears.
4. Subsequently, pursuant to the directions from this Court, the second respondent granted permission to the petitioner to remit the arrears of tax in six instalments as per Ext.P5. In spite of grant of permission to pay the tax arrears in instalments, after payment of the first instalment, petitioner defaulted in repaying the balance. Petitioner attempted to reason that, his application for replacement had not been considered by the authority which prompted him not to pay the arrears. Though petitioner contended that remittances made by him towards motor vehicles tax had also not been duly deducted while calculating arrears, to cut a long story short, petitioner insisted on grant of permission for replacement of the vehicle, to pay the arrears of motor vehicles tax. In the meantime, since this Court had directed the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application for replacement of the vehicle, by judgment dated 06.08.2020 in W.P.(C) No.14802 of 2020, the second respondent considered the same and rejected the application for replacement of the vehicle by order dated 09.11.2020, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P8.
5. A perusal of Ext.P8 reveals that the application for replacement of the vehicle was rejected on three grounds - that the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11-R-1824 had defaulted service for nearly three years, had failed to pay the arrears of tax for the said years, and that, the whereabouts of the vehicle are not known. It is in such circumstances that this writ petition has been filed, challenging Ext.P8 and also seeking directions for grant of replacement of the vehicle and for remittance of tax.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 stating that, the motor vehicles tax for the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11-R-1824 is in arrears from 01.04.2017 to 30.08.2017 and that revenue recovery steps have been initiated for recovery of the same. Respondents have further pointed out that the tax for the period 01.01.2019 to 31.03.2020 is also in arrears and that even after an instalment facility was granted for repayment of the tax, the same was not paid and hence petitioner lost the benefit of the direction, granting instalment facility. Respondents pleaded that the application for replacement of the vehicle along with the prescribed fee has not been received from the petitioner and that the details of the existing vehicle are not available even after contacting the registered owner. Respondents further pleaded that, since the whereabouts of the vehicle with the existing permit was not forthcoming, directions were issued for production of the vehicle and since the same was not produced and the registered owner admitted his lack of knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the vehicle, the rejection for grant of permission to replace the vehicle is justified. According to the respondents, if the tax
