IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34011 of 2009(V)
1. JACKSON C.JOSEPH, AGED 39 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.DEEPAK
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :21/12/2009
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P. (C) No. 34011 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 Memo
whereby Motor Vehicle Tax is demanded for the period from
7.8.2008 to 1.07.2009, with respect to Stage Carriage Vehicle
No.KL 5B 8195, belonging to the petitioner. Contention of the
petitioner is that tax with respect to the period has already been
paid and the demand now raised is based on a report of audit
conducted by the officials of the Accountant General, at the
office of the respondent. Under the audit report, it was pointed
out that there is a short assessment to the extent that the
petitioner was not entitled for payment of tax with respect to the
Vehicle in question, at the rates applicable to ‘Reserve Bus’. It is
contended by the petitioner that even assuming that there is any
escapement of assessment, the respondent has to follow
procedure contemplated under Section 26 of the Kerala Motor
Vehicle Taxation Act, and hence the impugned memo issued
without completing escaped assessment as per the procedure
contemplated and without issuing any proceedings of such
assessment, is totally unsustainable. It is further pointed out
WPC.No.34011 of 2009
: 2 :
that the petitioner was denied of any opportunity to dispute the
liability. Further it is contended that the petitioners right of
appeal, as contemplated under Section 23, is also denied, since
no order of assessment is issued.
2. Contention of the petitioner on the merits is that, the
amount demanded under Ext.P5 is not liable in view of the fact
that, the view taken by the respondent that he can seek payment
of tax applicable for ‘Reserve Bus’ only if permits relating to the
route Buses are in his own name, is absolutely incorrect.
3. However, considering the fact that the assessing
authority had not followed the procedure contemplated under
section 26 for finalizing the escaped assessment, I am of the
opinion that the recovery proceedings under Ext P5 could not be
pursued and the respondent need be directed to finalise the
assessment, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to
object, treating Ext.P5 as notice issued in this regard.
4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
petitioner to submit objection against the proposed assessment
within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The
respondents shall on receipt of such objection, conduct an
adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and shall issue orders of assessment as contemplated
WPC.No.34011 of 2009
: 3 :
under section 26. A decision in this regard shall be taken within
one month from the date of receipt of such objections.
5. Needless to say that no recovery steps pursuant to
Ext.P5 shall be taken till such a decision is arrived at by the first
respondent and proceedings in this regard is communicated to
the petitioner. It is further noticed that the petitioner if
aggrieved by such decision can approach the appellate authority
under section 23 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act.
( C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE)
jma