#vehicle Archives - Prime Legal

4 Jan

The Kerala High Court directs the Travancore Devaswom Board to maximize vehicle parking, deploy volunteers and provide drinking water to pilgrims.

Prime Legal

Blog #keralahighcourt, #vehicle

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case No: SSCR No. 41 of 2023

Decided on: 3rd January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH

Facts of the Case

The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala submitted a report regarding certain aspects concerning crowd management with reference to the deficiency in the Fastag parking fees collection point and vehicle parking at Nilakkal and deployment of personnel at parking grounds to arrange parking of vehicles. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has suo motu initiated the proceedings.

The High Court of Kerala passed a detailed order dated 25.12.2023 on crowd management at Sabarimala and at various places like Ponkunnam, Mundakayam, Pala, Kanjirappalli, Thirunakkara, Ettumanoor and Vaikom.

The learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board seek time to get instructions on crowd management and pilgrim facilities at Makarajyothi view points.

The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submits that the second track of FASTag scanning/parking fee collection provided at Nilakkal has become operational on 28.12.2023. It also submits that the total capacity of the parking grounds at Nilakkal is around 8,000 vehicles. The parking fee is being collected through FASTag. There was underutilization of parking facilities at Nilakkal during the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season.

Issues

The primary issue involves deficiencies and management challenges in crowd control, parking facilities, and pilgrim amenities during the festival season at Nilakkal and various related locations, as highlighted in the Special Commissioner’s report and addressed by the High Court’s order.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala directs the Travancore Devaswom Board and the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta to ensure that a maximum number of vehicles are parked at the Devaswom parking grounds at Nilakkal. It also directs the Travancore Devaswom Board to take immediate steps to deploy sufficient number of volunteers at U-turn and S-valavu, especially during night hours, and provide drinking water and light refreshments to the pilgrims stranded at those locations. The additional 17th respondent Superintending Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Public Health Circle, Pathanamthitta is directed to make provisions for adequate supply of drinking water at U-turn and S-valavu, in consultation with the Travancore Devaswom Board.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click to read the judgement

30 Nov

The Kerala High Court says that BS-IV and BS-VI vehicle pollution certificates are valid for one year.

Prime Legal

Blog #keralahighcourt, #pollution, #vehicle

Title: S. Sadananda Naik v. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & Ors.
Decided on: 21 November, 2023

+ W.P. (C) No. 30776/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh

Introduction

A government order (“GO”) issued by the Kerala State Government that established a uniform period of validity for Pollution Under Control (PUC) Certificates for all vehicle categories—regardless of whether they were produced in accordance with BS-VI (Bharat Stage Emission Standards-VI) or BS-IV (Bharat Stage Emission Standards-IV) standards—has been overturned by the Kerala High Court.

Facts of the Case

The State Government of Kerala issued the notification G.O.(Rt)No. 353/2022/ TRANS on August 22, 2022, which specifies the validity period and cost for Pollution Under Control (PUC) Certificates for a variety of vehicle categories, including two- and three-wheelers. This notice is being challenged in the current writ petition.

Courts analysis and decision

According to the requirement, the PUC Certificate’s validity may not exceed a year for cars built in accordance with BS-IV or BS-VI standards. In light of this, the court invalidated the challenged order/notification to the degree that it specified a consistent 6-month PUC Certificate validity duration for vehicles classified as BS-IV and BS-VI.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

28 Nov

The Kerala High Court held that All-India tourist vehicles are subject to fines and are not allowed to operate as stage carriers

Prime Legal

Blog #keralahighcourt, #motor, #motorvehicleact, #vehicle

Title: Abdulla. H. Naushad v. The State of Kerala
Decided on: 24 November, 2023

+ WP(C) NO. 39289 OF 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh

Introduction

According to the Kerala High Court, All India Tourist vehicles are not allowed to function as stage carriers. As a result, bus owners who violate these criteria may face fines.

Facts of the Case

The bus owners, who are the petitioners in this writ case, have asked, among other things, that the motor vehicle authorities and officials refrain from detaining their vehicles, which are in possession of valid All India Tourist Permits, on the grounds that they are in violation of section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, because the passengers are getting on and off the vehicle at different points along the way. The State Bus Department claims that even though the petitioners’ vehicles were in compliance with the terms of their all-India tourism visa, they were being used as stage carriages. As a result, it was claimed that the petitioners had received penalty checks for breaking the terms of their all-India tourist permits. Nonetheless, the petitioner argued that the Court has issued temporary orders in other pending cases that are comparable.

Courts analysis and decision

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) would suffer, the court ruled, hence the same cannot be allowed. The court further ruled, saying that “it is detrimental to stage carriage operators, including KSRTC, for all India tourist vehicles to function as stage carriages. The petitioners risk fines if they violate the terms of their permit. The petition and other related proceedings have now been listed by the court.

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

20 Aug

E-Way Bill Expired Due To Vehicle Break Down: Allahabad High Court Quashes Seizure Memo

Prime Legal

Blog #allahabad, #allahabadhighcourt, #Ewaybill, #expire, #vehicle

CASE TITLE: M/S Rateria Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another [WRIT TAX No. – 599 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 16.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Piyush Agrawal,J

INTRODUCTION
The decision by the Allahabad High Court involved overturning a ruling based on Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act 2017. This ruling had imposed a penalty based solely on the absence of evidence regarding the driver’s illness and the vehicle breakdown.

The petitioner regularly received goods from GAIL in Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh. Specifically, two invoices dated 6.3.2023 were issued for these inward supplies. E-way bills were generated, valid until 12.3.2023, and a Goods Receipt (GR) was also created on the same day. The GR explicitly referenced the invoice numbers and E-way bill details.

FACTS

While en route, the vehicle operator fell ill and could not complete the delivery within the timeframe specified in the E-way Bill. Consequently, on 13.3.2023, the vehicle was intercepted, and Form GST MOV04 was generated on 14.3.2023. Following this, Form GST MOV01 was produced on 23.3.2023, leading to an immediate decision that the transported goods were lacking proper documentation due to the expiration of the E-way bills.

A notification via Form GST MOV 07, pursuant to section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, was served, suggesting the imposition of penalties under sections 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the Act. Subsequently, an order was enacted under section 129(3) of the Act, requiring the petitioner to submit a specified amount to facilitate the release of the goods. Despite the petitioner’s appeal against this, it was dismissed.

The petitioner argued that there were no discrepancies between the physical inspection of the goods and the accompanying documentation. They contended that the driver’s unfamiliarity with GST laws prevented them from seeking an extension of the E-way Bill. The petitioner maintained that the situation was beyond their control.

Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that in their response, they explicitly stated that the goods could not be delivered on time due to the unforeseen illness of the driver. However, the Authority swiftly dismissed this explanation.

Drawing from the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. State of U.P., the petitioner contended that after refusing to remit taxes under Section 129(3), the Authority should have initiated proceedings under Sections 73, 74, and 75, in conjunction with Section 122 of the Act.

The Department’s representative alleged that the petitioner’s failure to renew the E-way bill indicated a breach of legal provisions. They also claimed that the expired E-way bill suggested the petitioner’s intent to evade tax obligations. Additionally, no medical records substantiating the driver’s illness were provided as evidence.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The court observed that there were no inconsistencies concerning the quality and quantity of goods during their transportation. The decision was made based solely on the expiration of the E-way Bill. Furthermore, the court explicitly highlighted that there were no allegations of tax evasion in any of the orders issued against the petitioner.

The court distinguished the judgment made by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) v. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. This distinction was drawn on the grounds that the aforementioned case involved a roadblock due to anti-CAA protests, whereas in the current scenario, the delay was attributed to the driver’s illness and vehicle breakdown. However, no substantiating evidence regarding these factors causing the delay had been presented on record.

While acknowledging that the petitioner had not provided any evidence to support the driver’s illness, the court noted that the Authority’s order had not provided any rationale for discrediting this claim.

Consequently, the writ petition was granted, leading to the matter being referred back to the Authority for a fresh assessment.

Click to View the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani