Provision for refund US 6 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Act applicable only if tax is paid in advance, vehicle not used: Supreme Court

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

“It is clear from section 6 of the 1976 Act without any doubt that the provision for refund will apply only where the vehicle tax has been paid in advance for the specified period and the vehicle is not intended to be used for the entire period. or a continuous part thereof of not less than one month” observed a single jury bench of Justice Gopinath P.

The petitioner is a registered owner of a vehicle originally belonging to the District Tourism Promotion Council, Malappuram. After purchasing the vehicle at auction, the petitioner’s request for change of registration number was rejected on the grounds of outstanding road tax.

As a result, the petitioner filed an application before the District Collector seeking exemption on the ground that the vehicle was not used during the period in question.

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

Aldushara James, the leading advocate for the government, countered this and contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to a refund of motor vehicle tax.

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

She added that Article 6 allows a claim for tax refund to be made only under such conditions as may be specified in a notification to be issued by the government.

It argued that, according to a decision of 20 April 2004, the tax for the period in question should have been paid within the prescribed period.

The court accepted the arguments of the government advocate and stated that “From the reading of the petition, it is clear that the tax for the aforesaid period was paid after the date on which it fell due. In such circumstances, on a plain reading of section 6 of the 1976 Act, no claim for reimbursement can be made”.

As such, the request was denied.

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

Counsel for Respondents: Attorney Aldushara James, Senior Advocate for the Government

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