AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KL- 03/C-8868, which is a Bajaj Tempo purchased in the year 2006, allegedly with a seating capacity of 13. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner when approached the concerned respondent for remitting tax for the last quarter, the same was refused to be accepted stating that the capacity was illegally reduced from 15 to 13, thus serving a notice to the petitioner seeking explanation in this regard, as borne by Ext.P6. On receipt of Ext.P6, petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply dated 20.06.2012, contending that, at the time of purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner in the year 2010, the seating capacity of the vehicle was shown as ''13'' itself as borne by Ext.P2. Ext.P3 receipt as to the contribution paid in respect of the workers under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund issued to the erstwhile owner also reveals the number of seating capacity as ''13''. Ext.P4 is a copy of the policy of insurance, where also seating capacity has been shown as ''12+1'' as on 13.7.2010. Subsequent to the purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner, Ext.P5 contract carriage permit was given, showing the maximum capacity as ''12'' and this being the position, no further proceedings are liable to be taken against the petitioner in respect of the alleged alteration in the office records as to the seating capacity. Ext.P7 reply highlights the innocence of the petitioner, pointing out that there was no contribution at all in any manner, as to the unlawful activities pursued by the parties concerned.
Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
The issue is actually having two dimensions, in relation to the registration of Crime No. 237/2012 of the Irinjalakkuda Police Station. The basic issue forming the subject matter of the said crime, is in respect of the offence committed by the accused, particularly, a person by name Wilson, with the active involvement of the departmental officials, causing fraudulent changes/alterations in the computer data and such other records of the Motor Vehicles Department, which is under investigation. The other aspect is with regard to the actual tax payable.
Involving exactly similar circumstance, another writ petition has come up for consideration before this Court as W.P.(C). No. 11591/2012. The ''modus operandi'' of the parties concerned was explained from the part of the respondents in the said case by filing a detailed statement. After considering the same, the similar relief sought for to permit the petitioner therein to satisfy the tax treating the vehicle as having a seating capacity of ''12+1'' was negated by this Court, for the obvious reason that, at the time of original registration of the vehicle, the seating capacity was something more and that the seating capacity was subsequently reduced as a result of the foul play. The learned Government Pleader submits that the issue involved in this case is also exactly the same and that the petitioner is not entitled to have any benefit of such fraud committed upon the Department/Government. As mentioned herein before, the issue is having two dimensions. Firstly, whether any criminal proceedings are liable to be pursued against and whether the petitioner is having any contribution in this regard, for pursuing any dubious course. Going by the materials produced by the petitioner, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner was never a contributory in respect of the fraudulent reduction of seats in the vehicle. The reduction of seats was fraudulently done, much prior tot he purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner. The vehicle is covered by Ext.P2 Certificate of Registration, Ext.P4 Policy of Insurance and Ext.P5 Contract Carriage Permit showing the maximum seating capacity as ''12''. As such, it may not be justified, if any criminal proceedings are caused to be pursued against the petitioner in respect of the crime registered as mentioned hereinbefore. But, then the question is whether the petitioner can be heard to say that he is liable to satisfy the tax only in respect of the ''12'' seats, treating the vehicle as having only the seating capacity of ''12+1''. This can be answered only in the negative, as the vehicle was originally manufactured and registered with a higher seating capacity, as asserted by the learned Government Pleader, which was later fraudulently reduced at the instance of the concerned owner/accused, with the active involvement of the officials of the Motor Vehicles Department. It is settled law, that fraud and justice do not co- exist and as such, if the petitioner wants to operate the vehicle, the petitioner has necessarily to satisfy the tax liability in respect of the actual seating capacity and nothing less. The issue has been considered and decided by this Court as per judgment dated 25.06.2012 in W.P.(C).No.11591/2012.
In the said circumstances, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.