IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 24079 of 2005(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- V.N.MANILAL, AGED 38, S/O.NANU.R. VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, IYKKARAKONAM, KAKKODE, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), PATHANAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, PUNALUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALACODE VILLAGE, PUNALUR. 4. MANOHARAN, AGED 55, S/O.NARAYANA VAIDYAR G.K.BHAVANAM, MUZHATHANGU, AYIRANELLOOR, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL ADV. SRI.T.K.PANKAJASHAN PILLAI - R4 SRI.SAJI PANKAJAKSHAN - R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).24079/2005-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 19/09/1998 EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND SALIM KUMAR. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 03/02/00 EXECUTED BETWEEN RAVINDRAN AND 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C1/KRF/2035/03 DATED 15/03/03 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C3-4179/05 DATED 20/06/2005 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 24079 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner challenges Ext.P4, revenue recovery notice, issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent herein, demanding motor vehicles tax in relation to the vehicle bearing registration No.KRF/2035. The contention of the petitioner is that, he was not the owner or the person in possession of the vehicle during the period in relation to which the tax is demanded. But this contention cannot be considered by the Deputy Tahsildar. The said officer is normally bound by the requisition received from the Taxation officer. If, the petitioner is not liable to pay tax, he has to workout his remedy under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. So, the challenge against Ext.P4, revenure recovery notice, fails and the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner regarding his liability to pay tax and his rights, if any, to workout remedies against the same. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps