IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34011 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JACKSON C.JOSEPH, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, CHUNDAKKATTIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 34011 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 Memo whereby Motor Vehicle Tax is demanded for the period from 7.8.2008 to 1.07.2009, with respect to Stage Carriage Vehicle No.KL 5B 8195, belonging to the petitioner. Contention of the petitioner is that tax with respect to the period has already been paid and the demand now raised is based on a report of audit conducted by the officials of the Accountant General, at the office of the respondent. Under the audit report, it was pointed out that there is a short assessment to the extent that the petitioner was not entitled for payment of tax with respect to the Vehicle in question, at the rates applicable to 'Reserve Bus'. It is contended by the petitioner that even assuming that there is any escapement of assessment, the respondent has to follow procedure contemplated under Section 26 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, and hence the impugned memo issued without completing escaped assessment as per the procedure contemplated and without issuing any proceedings of such assessment, is totally unsustainable. It is further pointed out WPC.No.34011 of 2009 : 2 : that the petitioner was denied of any opportunity to dispute the liability. Further it is contended that the petitioners right of appeal, as contemplated under Section 23, is also denied, since no order of assessment is issued. 2. Contention of the petitioner on the merits is that, the amount demanded under Ext.P5 is not liable in view of the fact that, the view taken by the respondent that he can seek payment of tax applicable for 'Reserve Bus' only if permits relating to the route Buses are in his own name, is absolutely incorrect. 3. However, considering the fact that the assessing authority had not followed the procedure contemplated under section 26 for finalizing the escaped assessment, I am of the opinion that the recovery proceedings under Ext P5 could not be pursued and the respondent need be directed to finalise the assessment, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to object, treating Ext.P5 as notice issued in this regard. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit objection against the proposed assessment within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. The respondents shall on receipt of such objection, conduct an adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall issue orders of assessment as contemplated WPC.No.34011 of 2009 : 3 : under section 26. A decision in this regard shall be taken within one month from the date of receipt of such objections. 5. Needless to say that no recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be taken till such a decision is arrived at by the first respondent and proceedings in this regard is communicated to the petitioner. It is further noticed that the petitioner if aggrieved by such decision can approach the appellate authority under section 23 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. ( C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) jma