JAI MARUTHI MOTOR SERVICE Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been referred to a Division Bench to consider the conflict of views that was felt to exist between the decision in K.T.Kathiri v. Regional Transport Officer (1965 K.L.T.1206)and the judgment of our learned brother Eradi,J .,in O.P.No.3469 of 1976.In K.T.Kathiri v. Regional Transport Officer (1965 K.L.T.1206)our learned brother Govindan Nair,J .,only ruled that merely because a person is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption under section 5(2)of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act,his liability for tax under section 3 does not automatically follow.The principle thus stated seems to be unexceptionable.Non -availability of the exemption from tax would not automati­cally attract liability to tax.That will have to be positively established on proof of the necessary ingredients.Our learned brother Eradi,J .,in the Judgment in O.P.No.3469 of 1976 has not referred to the decision of Govindan Nair,J.in K.T.Kathiri v. Regional Transport Officer .The facts before our learned brother Eradi,J .,only warranted a consideration of the question whether the rejection of the petitioner's request for exemption was justified and proper.The learned Judge held it was.No further question arose for consideration,nor was it dealt with by the learned Judge.So,there seems really to be no conflict between the two decisions.Whatever that be,the questions that were urged before us in this case did not fall for consideration of either of the two decisions.

(2.) AS representative of the facts and arguments before us we may refer to O.P.No.4783 of 1976 -C.The petitioner in this writ petition is a firm which owned two motor vehicles K.L.D.3230 and K.L.D.2937.The fitness certificate of the vehicles expired on 30th September 1974.Tax for the quarter ending 30th September 1974 was in arrear.Intimation of non -use of the vehicle was given on 30th September 1974,requesting exemption upto 31st August 1976.By Ext.P -1 dated 29th April 1976,the applicant was directed to send the application for exemption in Form G together with the registration certificate for the vehicle.By Ext.P -2 order dated 28th July 1976 the writ petitioner was informed that the registration certificate was received in the office only on 21st June 1976 after the prescribed period,and hence the request for exemption from 1st October 1975 to 30th June 1976 was rejected.In respect of the other vehicle,a similar order Ext.P -3 was passed.These are the two orders sought to be challenged in this writ petition.