IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35923 of 2009(I)
1. K.P. RAJAN, S/O. CHATHU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR),
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :18/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 35923 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondents
for realisation of the arrears of Motor Vehicles Tax in respect of the
goods carriage bearing No. KL-11/1879, which belongs to the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is that, the vehicle was not being operated for
quite long and it was dismantled on 30.09.2006, after which date, there
cannot be any liability for the petitioner to clear the alleged tax, more so
when, according to the petitioner, fitness Certificate was valid only till
30.08.2007.
2. In response to the averments made in the Writ Petition, the
1st respondent has filed a statement, contending that the petitioner,
pursuant to the issuance of the demand notice, had approached the
Government for providing some breathing time to clear the liability. After
considering the facts and circumstances, the Government had permitted
the petitioner to clear the liability by way of `ten’ equal monthly
instalments, after satisfying the 1/3 of the liability on or before
30.08.2006, which in turn was endorsed in the RC Book for due
remittance. Even though, the petitioner had remitted /13 of the above
WP(C) No.35923/2009
2
liability, the balance amount was not satisfied on time which led to the
recovery proceedings.
3. With regard to the dismantling of the vehicle, it is stated in
paragraph 3 of the said statement that the demand notice for arrears of
tax due for the entire period till 30.09.2008 was issued to the registered
owner on 17.09.2008 and it was in response to the said notice, that the
petitioner intimated that the vehicle was scrapped on 30.09.2006, i.e., two
years back. It is also pointed out that, the registration certificate of the
vehicle was not surrendered and no surrender application was filed on
time. That apart, the vehicle was also having a ‘hire purchase agreement’
with the financier in Madras and no ‘NOC’ from the financier was ever
produced, despite the service of notice by registered post in this regard.
4. Considering the circumstances, particularly in view of the
above unrebutted facts as brought to the notice of this Court and also in
view of the admitted fact that the intimation was served as to the
dismantling of the vehicle only pursuant to the notice issued by the
respondents demanding the tax arrears in the year 2008, this Court finds
that, the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle, is very much
liable to pay the tax till the quarter ending on 30th September, 2008 and
this being the position, absolutely no interference is wanted in this Writ
Petition. However, considering the extent of liability, the petitioner is
WP(C) No.35923/2009
3
permitted to clear the amount shown in Ext.P5 by way of `four’ equal
monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the
31st of this month, followed by similar instalments to be effected on or
before the 25th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, the
recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance and it is made clear that,
if any default is committed by the petitioner, in satisfying the liability as
above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps
for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum, pursuing such steps
from the stage where it stands now.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc