IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1095 of 2007(E)
1. C. SEBASTIAN, S/O. CHARLES,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
3. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R),
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.T.V.GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :09/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 1095 OF 2007 (E)
=====================
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 revenue
recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
2. Petitioner was the registered owner of a Tempo
Traveller bearing Regn.No.KL-07 C 1497, in respect of which hire
purchase was availed of from the additional 4th respondent
financier. Till 1/7/96, admittedly tax was paid by the petitioner.
Thereafter, default was committed not only in the payment of tax,
but also the dues to the financier. Finally, the vehicle was seized
by the financier on 17/12/97. Subsequently, based on an
understanding between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the
vehicle was dismantled on 2/2/99. It is also seen from Ext.P3
order passed by the 2nd respondent that the registration
certificate was also cancelled with effect from that date.
3. However, in the meanwhile, revenue recovery steps
were also initiated for recovery of the motor vehicle tax from
1/7/96 to 31/12/2000. It was in pursuance to the said requisition
that Ext.P4 notice was issued under the Revenue Recovery Act for
WPC 1095/07
:2 :
realising Rs.1,93,896/-, which is under challenge int his writ
petition.
4. Counter affidavit shows that subsequently the amount
demanded towards motor vehicle tax was reduced and was
refixed for the period 1/7/96 to 2/2/99 and the amount that is
sought to be recovered is Rs.1,14,696/- as against Rs.1,93,896/-
mentioned in Ext.P4.
5 The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle was seized
on 17/12/97 and that since then the vehicle was in the custody of
the financier. It is contended therefore that the recovery
proceedings initiated against him is illegal.
6. Exemption from the payment of motor vehicle tax can
be claimed only if the conditions specified in Section 5 of the
Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 have been complied
with. It has been so held by a Full Bench of this Court in
Regional Transport Officer v. Abdurahiman (2007(1) KLT
613). In this case, the vehicle was seized on 17/12/97 and
therefore admittedly petitioner has possession for the defaulted
period, 1/7/96 to 17/12/97. This liability of the petitioner is an
undisputed one. Even in respect of the said period and the
WPC 1095/07
:3 :
remaining period till 2/2/99, petitioner has no case of having
complied with the requirements of filing G Form as mandated in
Section 5 of the Act. If that requirement has not been complied
with, there arise no question of exemption from the payment of
motor vehicles tax. If that be so, the recovery of motor vehicle
tax for the period 1/7/96 to 2/2/99 cannot be faulted. I am not
persuaded to interfere. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
7. Counsel for the petitioner prays for an instalment
facility to discharge the liability.
8. I heard the learned Government Pleader also.
It is directed that the petitioner will be permitted to pay the
amount due in three instalments, the first of which shall be paid
on or before 20th of October 2009 and the subsequent instalments
on or before 20th of November and December, 2009. It is made
clear that if payment is made as above, recovery proceedings will
not be initiated and if default is committed, respondents will be
free to initiate recovery proceedings.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp