IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25784 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAJAN VARGHESE RTM NIVAS, PULLIKKANAKKU PO. MAVELIKKARA, BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA. 2. REGIONAL TRANASPORT OFFICER, CUM MOTOR VEHUICLES TAXATION OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA 3. DEPUTY TRANSPOROT COMMISSIONER MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION APPELLATE AUTHORITY SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMNE TPLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 25784 OF 2008 T ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P4 and seeks order finding that Exts.P5 and P6 are for excessive amount that is even for the period beyond the date of seizure of the vehicle on 11.12.2006 and order to reduce the demand as per Exts.P5 and P6 for the period beyond 11.12.2006. According to the petitioner, he was operating a vehicle as stage carriage. Police took the vehicle in custody on account of non-payment of tax on 11.12.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner has not given G-forms for the period in question. Going by the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Regional Transport Officer Vs. Abdurahiman [2007 (1) KLT 613] in respect of the claim for exemption, unless it is supported by G-forms, the claim cannot be allowed. The claim for exemption and claim for refund are two different things. In this case, I am not concerned with the claim for refund. Where claim for WPC.25784/08 : 2 : exemption is concerned, it has to be preceded by G-forms as provided in the Rules even if the vehicle is under police custody. In such circumstances, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the petitioner may be permitted to pay off the amounts in instalments. It is pointed out that the petitioner is not in a position to take back the vehicle. The petitioner is permitted to pay off the amounts demanded with additional tax and collection charges in five equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15.9.2008 and the further instalments shall be paid on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. If the petitioner makes default in a single instalment, it is open to the respondents to recover the amounts in lump sum. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks