IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 763 of 2006(N) --------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- S.PRAVEEN, POZHICKAL HOUSE, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O. , CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI. J. OMPRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), CHERTHALA. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHERTHALA. 4. JOHN, S/O.ULAHANNAN, THOTTATHIL, MONIPPALLY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW R4 BY ADV. SRI.SIBY J. MONIPPALLY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 763 of 2006(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 15-3-1990 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 19-2-2001 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 28-2-91. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23-4-2005. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16-5-2005. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF POSTING DATED 16-5-2005 FROM THE KANICHUKULANGARA POST OFFICE. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 8-9-2005. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 9-9-2005. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 30-12-2005. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 30-12-2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.763 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of arrears of motor vehicle tax due in respect of taxi car bearing Registration No.KRA 455. The petitioner challenges the demand on two grounds. First is that the arrears relates to the year 1991 onwards and therefore, the recovery is barred by limitation. The second is that insofar as the petitioner has already transferred the vehicle in favour of the 4th respondent, it is the 4th respondent, who is liable and not the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the limitation is not applicable, insofar as for dues to the Government, the limitation period applicable is 30 years, which is not yet over. Regarding the second contention, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle and therefore, he is liable, W.P.(C)No.763/06 2 although it is open to respondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the person in possession of the vehicle. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Admittedly, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. Going by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Vibhuraj v. Joseph [2007(1) KLT 853], the registered owner of a vehicle is liable for arrears of tax under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act 1976, if, even after sale, he still remains the registered owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take the contention that the petitioner is not liable to pay the arrears of tax in respect of the vehicle, insofar as the petitioner continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle. As far as the plea of limitation is concerned, no serious arguments have been raised by the petitioner, since the limitation period is 30 years for amounts due to the Government. 4. In the above circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner can contend that the petitioner is not liable to pay the arrears of tax in respect of the vehicle in question. But, at the same time, under Section 9 of the Act, the 4th respondent is also liable. Further there is a first charge over the vehicle W.P.(C)No.763/06 3 for arrears of motor vehicle tax. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the vehicle, the petitioner and the 4th respondent simultaneously. If any amount is recovered from the 4th respondent, it would be open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps to recover the same from the 4th respondent. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.763/06 4