SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
SONU VIJAY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7789 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.ALEENA SONY, SHRI.KIRANKUMAR T.S.
For the Respondents: SMT.RESHMITHA R CHANDRAN, SR.G.P

Failure to submit required documentation for vehicle tax exemptions results in liability for payment, even for unroadworthy vehicles.

Headnote:The judgment analyzes the implications of motor vehicle tax liability under the applicable law concerning unroadworthy vehicles. The petitioner contended that a vehicle involved in an accident should not incur tax. However, the court held that required documentation (Form G) was not submitted for tax exemption. The court allowed installment payments in light of the financial burden imposed. The court concluded that tax must be paid unless Form G is submitted, allowing for installment payment as stated in Ext.P6.

Table of Content
1. ownership and tax liability of unroadworthy vehicle. (Para 1)
2. obligation to submit form g for tax exemption. (Para 2)
3. court's authority to grant installment payments. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a heavy goods vehicle bearing registration no. KL-42-P-5853. According to the petitioner, the said vehicle met with an accident on 03.07.2021 and thereafter, the same was entrusted to the 6th respondent for repairing the same. The said vehicle is even now lying with the 6th respondent and it is not made roadworthy so far. However, despite the fact that, the vehicle is not fit for using on the road, a demand has been made for motor vehicle tax, in respect of the said vehicle and as part of the same, Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice has been issued demanding an amount of Rs.2,21,359/-. The specific contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, as the vehicle is not roadworthy, the demand of motor vehicle tax is not justifiable.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for he respondents.

3. As far as the challenge raised by the petitioner is concerned, I am of the view that, the same need not be considered in view of the fact that, in case the vehicle is not roadworthy, it was obligatory for the petitioner to submit Form G before the competent authority and to get exemption from the tax. In this case, admittedly no such Form G applications were submitted and therefore, the exemption as claimed by the petitioner from payment of tax cannot be granted. However, taking note of the fact that, the petitioner has been mulcted with a huge liability, an installment facility can be granted.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to clear the entire amount demanded as per Ext.P6 along with interest and other charges in fifteen monthly installments. The first installment shall become due on 06.04.2026 and the remaining installments shall be payable on sixth day of succeeding months. It is clarified that, in case any default is committed by the petitioner in the payment of any installments, this facility shall stand canceled. In such an event, it shall be open to the respondents to recommence the recovery proceedings from the point it was stopped. Subject to the compliance of the above, the coercive proceedings against the petitioner based on Ext.P6 shall stand stayed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top