India, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, 18 May 2022, WP (C) No. 2881 of 2022
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Outcome of the decision
Link to the full text of the decision
General Summary
A batch of writ petitions brought forth the woes of a certain category of owners of motor vehicles that cater to public transportation. A petition was filed by the owners of registered stage carriages who alleged that due to the restrictions imposed on public transportation, they were not allowed to operate their stage carriages during various periods. It was contended that despite the force majeure conditions and despite the Supreme Court's direction to extend the maximum economic benefits to all sectors, the Government had ignored the stage carriage operators.
The Court observed that in exercise of the powers under section 22 of the Act, the Government had granted the benefit of exemption for different periods during the pandemic. Further by virtue of reference to section 3 of the Act, petitioners could not claim any benefit for a non-payment of tax merely on the grounds of restrictions and regulations imposed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Out of a period of 15 months during the pandemic, an absolute or total exemption from tax was granted for a total of 12 months. Since an exemption from tax was granted for a reasonable period, it could not then be argued that despite the restrictions and regulations in place due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government had not considered the plight of stage carriage operators and contract carriage operators. The Court held that a writ of mandamus could not be issued to the Government to grant tax exemption for the stage carriages/contract carriages as sought by the petitioners. The Court found no merit in the writ petition which was therefore dismissed.
Facts of the case
A writ petition was filed by owners of registered stage carriages who alleged that due to the restrictions imposed on public transportation due to the Covid-19 situation, they were not allowed to operate their stage carriages during various periods. Apart from the periods of absolute prohibition in operating the stage carriages, there were other regulations even after the lock-down was lifted, such as restrictions on the operation of vehicles during Saturdays and Sundays, restrictions on operating during certain days using a pattern of odd and even numbers, restrictions on permitting passengers from containment zones to travel, a reduction in the number of trips permitted, etc.
According to the petitioners, the Justice Ramachandran Commission, which constituted the Fare Revision Committee, had submitted a report to the Government advising a grant of exemption from the payment of taxes and that, despite the above advice, the Government had exempted stage carriage operators from the payment of taxes only minimally, for limited periods only. It was contended that despite the force majeure conditions and despite the Supreme Court's direction to extend maximum economic benefits to all sectors, the Government ignored stage carriage operators. Faced with such a dilemma, the petitioners submitted a request for exemption from the payment of taxes.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private collectiveDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court stated that the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 was an Act providing for the levy of tax on motor vehicles and on passengers and goods carried by such vehicles. The incidence of tax under section 3 of the Act fell on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State. A reading of the provision of the section shows that the burden of tax under the Act is not necessarily on the use of the vehicle on the roads, but that the liability falls, even on vehicles kept ready for use on the roads. No manner of interpretation is required to conclude that even if a vehicle is not actually used on the roads tax liability will still be incurred the moment it is kept ready for use on the roads. The liability to pay tax accrues when the vehicle is kept ready for use on the road, but the collection of tax was deferred, giving the benefit of payment in installments. Therefore, by virtue of reference to section 3 of the Act, petitioners could not claim any benefit for a non-payment of taxes merely on the grounds of the restrictions and regulations imposed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In exercise of the powers under section 22 of the Act, the Government had granted the benefit of exemption for different periods during the pandemic. Out of a period of 15 months during the pandemic, absolute or total exemption from taxes was granted for a total of 12 months. Since exemption from payment of taxes was granted for reasonable periods, it could not be said that, despite the restrictions and regulations put in place due to the Covid-19 pandemic, that the Government had not considered the plight of stage carriage operators and contract carriage operators.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The claim was rejected.
The Court held that a writ of mandamus could not be issued to the Government to grant tax exemption for the stage carriages or contract carriages as sought by petitioners. Furthermore, the Court directed respondents to obtain instructions on the decision made on the representations submitted by the petitioners as Ext. P3 and Ext. P4, taking into consideration the advice of the Fare Revision Committee. It was informed that the Government had declined the request made in the representations. Since the Government had declined the request submitted as Ext. P3 and Ext. P4 produced in W.P.(C) No. 2881 of 2022, the Court stated that a further direction for consideration of Ext. P3 and Ext. P4 would be redundant and superfluous.
Accordingly, no merit was found in the writ petition. All related writ petitions were therefore dismissed.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court applied the reasonableness principle in observing that out of a period of 15 months during the pandemic, an absolute or total exemption from taxes was granted for a total of 12 months. Since an exemption from tax payment was granted for reasonable periods, it could not then be said that, despite the restrictions and regulations put in place due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government had not considered the plight of stage carriage operators and contract carriage operators.
