IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32310 of 2008(U) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED, 21, PATULLOS ROAD, CHENNAI 600 002,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER(LEGAL) S.L.MOHAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SHRI.K .Y. CHACKO, SINU BHAVAN, THRIKKANNAMANGALAM, P.O.KOTTARAKKARA 691506, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA 691506, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) KOLLAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.C.S.DIAS FOR R1 SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR FOR R1 R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 32310 OF 2008 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a financier having provided finance to the first respondent under a hire purchase agreement. Petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the vehicle was re- possessed on 2.3.2004. Eversince the re-possession of the vehicle, from 1.4.2004 the petitioner has been regularly filing intimation of non-use of the vehicle in Form G. Ext.P2 is produced as the intimation. Ext.P3 is a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. Petitioner addressed Ext.P4 petition before the second respondent, Regional Transport Officer. Learned Government Pleader points out that the amount demanded is in respect of the period from 1.10.2003 to WPC.32310/08 U 2 30.6.2004, and for the quarter ending 30.6.2004, though G Form was filed by the petitioner, that came to be rejected and notice was also issued to the petitioner. For the period other than the said period, no G Form was filed and, therefore, the liability to pay tax is beyond question. Then, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that proceedings may be taken against the vehicle under Section 11. 3. Having considered the matter, I feel that the vehicle which has been re-possessed by the petitioner should be proceeded against first and should there be a short-fall in the amount which is to be paid, the official respondents should be left free to proceed against both the petitioner as also the first respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance and proceedings shall be taken against the vehicle bearing registration No. KL- 02-F-8089. After proceeding against the vehicle, if it is found that the amount due is not fully realised, it is made clear that the official respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the WPC.32310/08 U 3 petitioner as also the first respondent for realisation of the amount. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge