IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 3705 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYS MARKETING, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SUMA JOVACHIM, NEAR ST.ANNS CHURCH, KALAVAMKODAOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU), SRI.K.BINNI KAMAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 685 420. 2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CHERTHALA - 685 420. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.3705 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23th day of , 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the owner of a Maruthi Omni Vehicle baring Registration No.KL04J1918 which was sold to one Sri.Manoj on 17/08/2005. It is evident from Ext.P1 and P2 that the registration of the vehicle was transferred into the name of the purchaser with effect from 17/08/2005. It is stated that on an earlier occasion by virtue of Ext.P3 recovery steps was initiated against the petitioner demanding payment of a sum of Rs.14,210/- towards arrears of Motor Vehicle Tax due with respect to the vehicle in question. The petitioner objected the recovery steps by filing Ext.P4 in which it was contended that since the vehicle was transferred with effect from 17- 8-2005,he is not liable for payment of the amount demanded. Through Ext.P5 the second respondent had informed the 1st respondent that the Revenue Recovery .W.P.(C)No.3705 OF 2011 : 2 : steps has already been withdrawn through an intimation given to the District Collector dated 8/9/2008. But the petitioner was subsequently served that another notice as per Ext.p6 where by an amount of Rs.14,710/- was demanded as arrears of tax due for the period from 5-6- 2001 to 17-08-2008. Since the recovery steps are now initiated for realisation of the very amount mainly pertaining to the period after the sales, the petitioner is challenging the recovery steps initiated pursuat to Ext.P6. 2.In a statement on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is admitted that the ownership of the vehicle was transferred into the name of Sri.Manoj with effect from 17-08-2005. The withdrawal of the Revenue Recovery steps initiated by virtue of Ext.P3 is also admitted. But it is mentioned that through the Audit Report the 2nd respondent requested to take steps for realisation of the amounts of Rs.14,710 being tax due for the period from 5- 6-2001 to 17-8-05 and the Revenue Recovery requisition .W.P.(C)No.3705 OF 2011 : 3 : was issued in this regard as evidenced from Ext.R2(A). It is further stated that the period mentioned in Ext.P6 notice as from 5-6-01 to 17-8-08 may be only due to mistake committed by the Revenue Recovery authorities because the requisition was issued only with respect to the period with effect from 5-6-01 to 17-8-05. According to the 2nd respondent, the amount of Rs.14,710 which is now sought to be realised pertains to arrears of tax due for the prior to the transfer and an actual amount due on scrutiny was found to be Rs.13,520/- only. Hence it is contended that the petitioner is liable for the payment of a sum of Rs.13,520/-. 3.From the rival contentions as stated it is evident that Ext.P6 RR notice was issued not in a proper manner and the said notice does not reflect the actual amount as well as the actual period for which such amount is due. Hence I am of the view that the recovery steps can be permitted to be pursued only after issuing proper notice However, it is evident from the contentions raised that .W.P.(C)No.3705 OF 2011 : 4 : before initiating recovery steps the petitioner has not been issued any memo demanding payment of the actual arrears. It is noticed that if any such demand is made, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same in appeal as provided under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P6. The 2nd respondent is directed to issue memo to the petitioner demanding the exact amount as well as the period for which such amount is due. Of course the 2nd respondent will be at liberty to pursue recovery steps if the petitioner fails to make payment of such amount. It is also made clear that on receipt of any such memo the petitioner will be at liberty to invoke statutory remedy if he has got any valid dispute in relation to such demand. Needful in this regard shall be done by the 2nd respondent at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of the copy of the judgment. .W.P.(C)No.3705 OF 2011 : 5 : (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE)