IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 23723 of 2000(Y)
1. THE EKM. DIST. CO.OP.BANK LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE R.T.O. KAKKANAD
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
Dated :17/03/2008
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN, J.
---------------------------
O.P.No.23723 OF 2000
----------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank, who is also the financier in the
purchase of three buses by a primary co-operative society. That primary
society is not made a party in this original petition. They committed default
in repayment of the amount and admittedly the petitioner based on the hire
purchase agreement re-possessed the vehicles in 1995 and thereafter
initiated steps for recovery of the amount due to them by filing an
arbitration suit under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act before the
Arbitrator. Eventually, a decree was passed. In the meantime, the vehicles
were also attached at the instance of the petitioner and sold on 20/9/1999.
During the period after it was re-possessed by the petitioner until it was
sold on 20/9/1999, proceedings for the recovery of tax in respect of the
vehicles were initiated by the department against the petitioner. Challenging
the said proceedings, this original petition is filed. It is now settled that by
virtue of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the financier
in possession of the vehicle is also liable for payment of tax jointly and
-2-
O.P.No.23723/2000
severally. True in case such tax is recovered from the financier, they may
be entitled to recover the same from the hirer. But in this case admittedly
the tax became due after 1995 i.e. after the vehicles were re-possessed by
the petitioner. Though it is contended by the Senior Counsel Sri
A.M.Shaffique that there was an attachment and pursuant to the
attachment, the vehicles were not put in use, admittedly, it was sold only
on 20/9/1999 at a time when the buses were continued to be in possession
of the petitioner. If, as a matter of fact, the buses were not put in use, it
would have been open for the petitioner to apply for tax exemption by
filing ‘G’ Form, which was also not done in this case. In the above
circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot disclaim his liability to
pay tax during the period in question.
2. It was then contended by the learned counsel that based on
Ext.P3 agreement, primary society is liable for all outstanding tax dues on
the vehicles. Certainly there is a contract between the petitioner and the
third party to purchase the vehicles. That is not binding on the financier.
If the petitioner has ultimately become liable to pay this amount, he may
work out his remedy based on Ext.P7 against the purchaser; but no relief
can be granted to the petitioner as against the demand now raised by the
-3-
O.P.No.23723/2000
Motor Vehicle Authorities.
In the circumstances, I find no merit in this petition. Original
petition is dismissed.
P.R.RAMAN,
Judge.
kcv.
-4-
O.P.No.23723/2000
P.R.RAMAN, J.
————————–
O.P.NO.23723 OF 1999
————————–
JUDGMENT/O R D E R
22nd November, 2007
-5-
O.P.No.23723/2000