IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 12404 of 1997(B)
1. V.S.MATHEW
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RTO.,PATHANAMTHITTA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :02/03/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
O.P.No.12404 of 1997-B
-------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 2nd day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage
carriage bearing Registration No.KL-5/A-7160. Petitioner
claims to have sold the vehicle, as per a sale agreement dated
12.1.1996, to one Joseph. Petitioner also claims that pursuant
to the sale agreement, possession of the bus was handed over
to the said Joseph. It is further submitted that the said Joseph
further effected transfer of the vehicle and now it is in the
hands of the third respondent. Petitioner’s grievance now is
that although the petitioner had sold the vehicle in January,
1996, he has been served with Ext.P1 notice demanding motor
vehicle tax for the vehicle, for the period from 1.10.1996 to
31.3.1997. Petitioner challenges that demand. Petitioner
further contends that subsequently in respect of that vehicle
somebody has forged the signature of the petitioner to apply for
a permit. Petitioner also submits that subsequently the vehicle
was stolen by somebody in respect of which a complaint has
been filed by the third respondent and this Court by Ext.P4
judgment had directed investigation. According to the
O.P.No.12404 of 1997
2
petitioner, in the above circumstances, no tax is payable by the
petitioner as demanded in Ext.P1. Petitioner, therefore, seeks
the following reliefs:
“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writs, directions or orders quashing
Ext.P3.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writs, directions or orders
commanding the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh
enquiry in accordance with law after affording
opportunities of being heard to the petitioner and
all other interested parties to fix the tax liability
for the period 1.10.1996 to 31.3.1997.”
3. I have heard learned Government Pleader also.
4. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner
continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle. As such
the liability to pay tax continues to be that of the petitioner. Of
course, the respondents have powers to recover the tax from
the transferee also by virtue of Section 9(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. However, Section 9(2) of the said
Act makes it abundantly clear that nothing contained in sub-
section (1) shall be deemed to affect the liability to pay the said
tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has
ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle. In view of
O.P.No.12404 of 1997
3
the said provision, petitioner continues to be liable to pay the
tax notwithstanding the alleged transfer.
5. That being so, there is no merit in the challenge
to Ext.P1 demand. Accordingly, the original petition is
dismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN,
JUDGE
vns