Provision For Refund U/S 6 Of Kerala Motor Vehicles Act Only Applicable If Tax Paid In Advance, Vehicle Not Used: High Court

The Kerala High Court has clarified that the provision for refund under Section 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976 will only apply if the motor vehicle tax has been paid in advance for a vehicle.

“A reading of Section 6 of the 1976 Act indicates beyond doubt that the provision for refund will apply only when the motor vehicle tax has been paid in advance for the period specified and the vehicle is not intended to be used during the whole of that period or a continuous part thereof not being less than one month” observed a Single Judge bench of Justice Gopinath P.

The petitioner is a registered owner of a vehicle which originally belonged to the District Tourism Promotion Council, Malappuram. After purchasing the vehicle at an auction, the petitioner's application for a change of registration was rejected on the grounds of arrears of road tax.

As a result, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector seeking an exemption based on the fact that the vehicle was not being used for the period in question.

Faced with a scenario where the petitioner could not use the vehicle, he remitted tax for the period in question and thereafter, applied for a refund. The petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, when the vehicle in question was admittedly in the custody of the DTPC headed by the District Collector, the petitioner is entitled to claim a refund of the taxes paid for the period from 01-07-2016 till the date of registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner.

Thushara James, the senior Government Pleader, countered this and asserted that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund of motor vehicle tax in the facts and circumstances of this case.

She cited the provisions of Section 6 of the 1976 Act to contend that a claim for a refund of tax can be made only if the tax for the period in question has been paid within time and as per the terms of Section 4 of the Act.

She added that Section 6 allows for a claim for a refund of tax to be made only subject to the conditions as may be specified in a notification to be issued by the Government.

She submitted that an order dated April 20, 2004 required that the tax for the period in question ought to have been paid within the time prescribed.

The court accepted the arguments put forth by the Government Pleader and stated that “it is clear from a reading of the writ petition that the tax for the period above was paid after the date on which it was liable to be paid. In such circumstances, on a plain reading of Section 6 of the 1976 Act, an application for a refund cannot be made”.

As such, the petition was dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Ansu Varghese, KJ Joseph, Krishnanunni GB and A Amrutha Vidyadharan

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate Thushara James, Senior Government Pleader

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 277

Case Title: Muhammed Safeer P v. Regional Transport Officer and ors.

Case Number: WP(C) No. 30097 of 2018

Click here to read/download the order