JUDGMENT
Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
1. The Regional Transport Officer, Idukki, the respondent in the Original Petition, is the appellant before us in this Writ Appeal, filed against the judgment dated 6.4.2001 passed in O.P. No. 8536/2001.
2. The respondent herein who was the petitioner in the Original Petition filed the Original Petition, for the following reliefs:–
i) to quash Ext. P4 issued by the respondent by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to issue No Objection Certificate (clearance certificate) in respect of KEH.900 as requested in Ext.P3, forthwith;
iii) to issue an interim direction directing the respondent to issue No Objection Certificate (clearance certificate) in respect of KEH.900, forthwith, pending disposal of the Original Petition;
iv) to issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order which this Honourable Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. The learned Single Judge agreeing with the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner disposed of the Original Petition in the following terms:
13. In this view, I set aside Ext. P4. It is true that the transferee has not come to this Court, but from the pleadings it is clear that the transferor was under the impression that it was his duty to supply a ‘No Objection Certificate’ and the Department had also imposed it as a duty, by a long period of practice. Hence I do not think that a technical approach is to be adopted, after clarifying the legal positions on the issue. If an application is filed by the purchaser as envisaged under Rule 55, or if it is filed promptly, as a consequence to Ext.P2, the respondent will examine his claims and make necessary entries in the registration certificate. The tax liability of the transferor in respect of another vehicle cannot be projected as a factor interfering with the right of such claims.
The Original Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that as the dues on the petitioner’s vehicle No. KBE 8888 could have been legally recovered by attachment and sale of the petitioner’s other vehicle, KEH. 900 by virtue of Section 13 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act read with Section 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the learned Single Judge has erred in quashing Ext. P4 where by the authorities had directed the petitioner to clear the tax dues in respect of KEB. 8888 so as to consider the application for no objection certificate in respect of KEH. 900 which is for the purpose of registering the transfer of ownership of the vehicle KEH 900.
5. Before going to the merits of the contentions of parties we may immediately note that the relief granted by the learned single Judge was in favour of the purchaser, who is not a party to the Original Petition and in fact the relief granted goes beyond the scope of the reliefs sought by the petitioner, who was the seller of the vehicle. This itself was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that in so far as there is no liability for arrears of tax in respect of vehicle No. KEH 900, for issue of no-objection certificate for transfer of ownership of that vehicle, clearance of tax liability in respect of KBE 3888 cannot be insisted upon, in the absence of any provision in the Act and Rules to that effect. The learned Judge further went on to hold that for transfer of ownership, no formalities other than filing of an application in Form 29 is stipulated and the requirement of no objection certificate under Rule 55(3) is required only in cases falling under Section 50(1)(a)(iii) of the Motor Vehicles Act applicable only to vehicles registered outside the State. In that view the learned Single Judge directed the R.T.O. to examine the claims of the purchaser and make necessary entries in the registration certificate, if an application if filed by the purchaser under Rule 55.
7. We are of opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not correct The State cannot be compelled to act to its detriment, while performing functions under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, mat too in respect of acts which would render the remedies available to it for enforcing demand for arrears of tax otiose. By making endorsements in the registration certificates recognising the transfer of the another vehicle belonging to the defaulter, the State would be deprived of one of the modes of recoveries of arrears of tax in respect of the other vehicle owned by the same person. The whole object of provisions like Rules 9, 13, 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules is to ensure easy realisation of tax due to the State. Attachment and sale of defaulter’s movable property, which includes another vehicle belonging to the defaulter, is one of the modes of realisation of public revenue available to the State under Section 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Once the ownership of that vehicle is allowed to be transferred, that too by the act of the State itself, the State would be deprived of a movable asset of the defaulter which could be proceeded against. If the defaulter does not possess any other asset, then the State would be deprived of its revenue for ever. In such circumstances, the State cannot be compelled to act to its own detriment by directing it to make endorsement regarding the transfer in the registration certificate. Such a view is also not without the backing of provisions of law also as we would presently discuss.
8. Admittedly, there were dues on the petitioner’s vehicle, KBE. 8888. In fact such demand was raised on 14.12.2000 much before the date of the application for no objection certificate made on 28.2.2001.
9. Section 13 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act which prescribes the mode for recovery of the arrears of tax reads as follows:–
13. Amounts recoverable as arrear of land revenue:
(1) Any amount due under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be recoverable in the same manner as an arrear of public revenue due on land.
(2) The motor vehicle in respect of which any amount is due or its accessories may be distrained and sold in pursuance of Sub-section (1) whether or not such vehicle or accessories is or are in the possession or control of the person liable to pay the amount.
10. By virtue of Sub-section 1 of Section 13, any amount due under the Act can be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of public revenue due on land. Section 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act prescribes the mode for recovery of arrears of public revenue on land. Section 5 reads as follows:
5. Arrears of public revenue due on land how recovered:– Whenever public revenue due on land is in arrear, such arrear, together with interest, if any and cost of process may be recovered by one or more of the following modes:
(a) by attachment and sale of the defaulter’s movable property;
(b) by attachment and sale of the defaulter’s immovable property;
(c) by appointing an agent for the management of the defaulter’s immovable property.
11. A bare reading of Section 13 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and Section 5 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery. Act makes it apparent that the defaulter’s movable and immovable properties can be attached and put to sale for the recovery of the tax dues. As the petitioners’s vehicle, KEH. 900 is open to attachment and sale being his movable property, for the recovery of the arrears of tax on the other vehicle, KBE. 8888, no fault can be found with the order, Ext.P4, whereby the authorities asked the petitioner to clear the dues first. If the authorities are to issue clearance certificate in regard to the petitioner’s vehicle, KEH. 900, the State’s interest may be put to detriment as the petitioner’s other assets may not be sufficient to clear the dues on the petitioner’s vehicle, KBE. 8888 which is reported to be a very old vehicle.
12. We are of the firm opinion that defaulters of tax cannot be allowed to escape from their liabilities to pay tax by compelling the State to act to its detriment exercising statutory functions at least under complementary laws on the same subject matter, in favour of the defaulters, if such exercise would deprive the State of any mode of recovery of the revenue available to the State. Any interpretation on the provisions which facilitates the defaulters to evade public revenue would be against the spirit of law, as is clear from the scheme of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules thereunder, Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and Rules thereunder and the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, which make elaborate provisions to safeguard the interests of the revenue even against the ordinary laws relating to contract and property. Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, merits particular mention in this regard, which reads thus:
14. Transfers to defeat or delay recovery of tax and other amounts:– Where during the pendency of any proceedings under this Act for the recovery of the tax or other amount due in respect of any motor vehicle, the registered owner or the person having possession or control of that motor vehicle creates a charge on, or transfers, whether by way of sale, mortgage, exchange or any other mode of transfer whatsoever and of his assets in favour of any other person with intent of defeat or delay the recovery of such tax or other amount from him, such charge or transfer shall be void as against any claim in respect of the tax or other amount found payable by him on completion of the said proceedings:
Provided that nothing in this section shall impair the rights of a charge-holder or transferee in good faith and for consideration.
15. Transport vehicle permit to be ineffective if tax not paid.– Notwithstanding anything contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939) if the tax due in respect of a transport vehicle is not paid within the prescribed period, the validity of the permit, for that vehicle shall become ineffective from the date of expiry of the said period until such time as the tax is actually paid.
Of course these provisions relate to the vehicles in respect of which arrears of tax are due. But the point is that by virtue of the arrears, other benefits due to the defaulter under other provisions of law, in respect of which he has complied with the required formalities, have also been authorised to be deprived of. The necessary inference is that the law itself postulates that defaulters should not be encouraged by allowing them to have benefit of other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and civil laws, without the default having been made good. Therefore, the interpretation adopted by us is more in consonance with the spirit of the law of motor vehicles.
13. The outcome of the above discussion is that the view and the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld and is liable to be set aside.
The Writ Appeal, therefore, is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the Original Petition stands dismissed
Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.