IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 22057 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD., ~40/786,CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER RAJU THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,ALAPPUZHA 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. THULASI JAYAKUMAR,W/O.JAYAKUMAR, EDAVAZHIKKAL HOUSE, PALLIPURAM PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22057 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner Company is engaged in the business of financing, hire purchase and leasing of commercial vehicles. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Exts.P1 and P1(a) notices, for realising motor vehicles tax due with respect to vehicle bearing registration NO. KL 04 M 1249. According to the petitioner the 3rd respondent herein is the registered owner and the petitioner was never in possession of the vehicle in question. It is contended that the petitioner, eventhough extended finance facility to the 3rd respondent, is not at all liable to pay the motor vehicles tax due with respect to the vehicle in question. 2. In a statement filed by the first respondent it is mentioned that, the petitioner had taken over possession of the vehicle from the 3rd respondent and the registration 2 WP(C) No. 22057/2010 of the vehicle stands in the name of the petitioner with effect from 27.07.2006. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent had defaulted payment of tax with respect to period from 01.07.2005 to 30.06.2006 and revenue recovery steps were initiated against 3rd respondent for realising amounts due for the said period. The motor vehicles tax with respect to the period from 01.07.2006 to 31.03.2009, except for the period from 01.08.2006 to 31.12.2006, is in arrears. It is mentioned that with respect to the period from 01.08.2006 to 31.12.2006 exemption was allowed on the basis of claim submitted by the petitioner. Since no exemption was allowed with respect to the remaining period and since the petitioner had failed to make payment of tax due, the recovery steps, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, is being proceeded against. Along with the statement Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) letters issued by the petitioner were also produced to show that the petitioner had admitted that the vehicle was in their possession and 3 WP(C) No. 22057/2010 they have filed from G application seeking exemption. 3. Confronted with the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Writ Petition was filed from the office of the first respondent in Ernakulm and there was lack of communication between the branch at Alappuzha where the vehicle was taken possession and at whose instance the ownership was got transferred. Therefore it is submitted that there was no wilful suppression of the materials and the Writ Petition happened to be filed on a bonafide belief that the vehicle is still in the ownership and possession of the 3rd respondent. 4. Under such circumstances, learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the Writ Petition without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to challenge the demand raised against them on the basis of the claim for exemption through appropriate proceedings. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to rights if any available to the 4 WP(C) No. 22057/2010 petitioner to challenge the demand for motor vehicles tax in appropriate proceedings, on the basis of the claim for exemption. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc