IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 747 of 2009()
1. V.S.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
3. A.R.VINOD,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :27/03/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.A. No.747 OF 2009
-------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant was the registered owner of a stage carriage
bearing registration No.KL-5A/ 7160. He sold the vehicle on
12.1.1996. It appears the transferee did not pay the tax.
Therefore, he was served with Ext.P1 demand for tax, for the
period from 1.10.1996 to 31.3.1997. He filed a representation
against that demand. This Court by Ext.P2 judgment directed to
consider the representation. The representation was
considered and rejected by Ext.P3 communication by the
Regional Transport Officer. So, challenging Ext.P3, the Writ
Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ
Petition holding that the appellant being the registered owner,
is liable to pay the tax. The person in possession may also be
liable. But, that will not affect the liability of the appellant.
Based on that finding, the Writ Petition was dismissed. This
W.A.No.747/2009 2
appeal is filed challenging the above judgment of the learned
Single Judge.
2. Mr.G.Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the vehicle was changed hands several times and
it is not available now. Even in the face of the direction issued
by this Court, the police was not able to trace it. Since the
vehicle was neither used nor kept for use in the State, even
though he is the registered owner he is not liable to pay the tax.
3. Going by the averments in the appeal memorandum, it
is clear that the vehicle was very much available in the State
during the first quarter of 1997. There is no ‘G Form’ in relation
to that quarter. So, the statutory presumption that the vehicle
was kept for use in the State will come into operation. So, in
relation to the period covered by Ext.P1, the aforementioned
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant
cannot be accepted. Those contentions may be relevant, if a
demand is raised for subsequent periods. We are not expressing
any opinion on that matter. Since the appellant continued to be
W.A.No.747/2009 3
the registered owner upto 31.3.1997 and the vehicle was not
covered by any ‘G Form’, the demand under Ext.P1 is fully
justified. So, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment
under appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)
ps