IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 30162 of 2004(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.D.VARGHESE, W/O. DEVASSY, VADAKKEDATH THYVALAPPIL HOUSE, KARYATTUKKARA, ELTHURUTHU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. KRISHNADAS, S/O. THEKKEMEPPULLY KRISHNAN, PERINCHERY DESOM, AVINISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. TEK CHAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.30162/2004-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DTD. 06/07/2002 BETWEEN PETITIONER AND R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTIMATION DTD. 23/03/04. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. C2-8KL9/7062/TM/04 DTD. 07/07/04. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30162 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner, who was the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. KL-9/7062, challenges Ext.P3 demand notice issued by the taxation officer under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for payment of tax for the period from 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2004. He submits, he sold the vehicle under Ext.P1 agreement to the 2nd respondent on 6.7.2002 and he has intimated the R.T.O, Thrissur about the same as per Ext.P2 dated 23.3.2004. Therefore, the demand as per Ext.P3 is unsustainable, it is submitted. If the ownership of the vehicle is transferred, the formalities for transfer of the registration has to be completed by the petitioner as provided under law, within the prescribed time limit. Going by the Ext.P2, admittedly, the petitioner has not taken action in time. So, the petitioner continue to be the registered owner of the vehicle for the period in relation to which tax was demanded. So, he is liable to pay tax in view of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. If the registration has not been changed, the petitioner has W.P.(C) No.30162/2004 2 to workout his remedy against the inaction of the registration officer in that regard. The same cannot be raised as a collateral ground in this proceedings where he challenges Ext.P2. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and it is dismissed. The taxation officer will be free to recover the amount from the petitioner or from the person in possession of the vehicle. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps