IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 37512 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ROY ABRAHAM, THOMMIKKATTIL HOUSE, ULIKKAL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. S.P.MAHAVIR CHAND, 7 KALATHI PILLAI STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI. 79. 6. KARIYATH SHAMEER, S/O.HUSSAIN, KOLARI AMSOM, KALLUR DESOM, MATTANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 37512 OF 2008 N -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner was the registered owner of a bus bearing registration No. KL-13/B 4415. Petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P9 and P10 and a declaration is sought that he is not liable to pay motor vehicle tax in respect of vehicle bearing registration No. KL-13/B 4415 at least for the period from 31.3.2007. A mandamus is sought not to proceed against the petitioner for non-payment of motor vehicle tax since the petitioner had no occasion to ply the vehicle or use the public road at least for the period from December, 2004. Exts.P9 and P10 are demand notices issued under Sections 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that the financier took possession of the vehicle of the petitioner in December, 2004. He is not having connection with the vehicle. It is stated that the financier dismantled and sold the WPC.37512/08 N 2 vehicle. He received Ext.P1 notice. He sent Exts.P2 and P3 representations. In the meantime, he was served with Exts.P4 and P5 under Sections 34 and 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act respectively. He challenged the same before this Court in W.P. (C).No.9297/08 and Ext.P6 is the Judgment. Thereafter, he received a letter dated 18.3.2008 from the second respondent, District Collector, directing him to appear for personal hearing vide Ext.P7. According to petitioner, he appeared and submitted that he had no document pertaining to the vehicle with him as the RC Book and other documents were taken possession by the fifth respondent. Ext.P8 is said to be the Agreement between the petitioner and the sixth respondent who is the agent of the fifth respondent. It is stated that like a bolt from the blue, petitioner is served with Exts.P9 and P10. 2. An Affidavit is filed by the third respondent, Regional Transport Officer and the petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit. In the Affidavit of the third respondent it is, inter alia, stated as follows: WPC.37512/08 N 3 Revenue recovery steps had been taken against the petitioner for collecting arrears of tax for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.03.2008. It is further stated that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P2 representation dated 15.12.2007. Ext.P7 notice was issued to him. Petitioner informed that the vehicle was re-possessed by the fifth respondent long back. He was directed to produce document and he could not and did not produce any document. The fifth respondent was addressed and the fifth respondent informed that the vehicle was not taken into custody and they were also in search of the very same vehicle because there is huge arrears of hypothecation instalments towards the fifth respondent. Petitioner is the registered owner. Reference is made to Ext.P8 Agreement and that it was produced. It is stated in the Agreement that the vehicle was handed over to one Shri Shameer who is the agent of the fifth respondent, on 18.3.2004. But in Exts.P2 and P3, it is stated that the petitioner admits that till December, 2004 he was using the vehicle and it is mutually contradictory. It is stated that the WPC.37512/08 N 4 total amounts in Exts.P9 and P10 are arrears from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 with additional tax. 3. In the Reply Affidavit, no doubt, the petitioner refers to Ext.P2. Therein, reference is made to Ext.P2 and reiterated the contentions. It is also stated that he has not received any demand notice for arrears as due from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008. 4. I heard Shri Cibi Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates his contentions. He would contend that at least, after having given Ext.P2 on 15.12.2007, the petitioner should be exempted from payment of tax. 5. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, points out that though notice was issued by Ext.P2, the petitioner could not make good his case. 6. It is to be noted that the case of the petitioner was that he was not liable since December, 2004. Petitioner had approached this Court and Ext.P6 Judgment was rendered. Therein, I note that though the petitioner had challenged the WPC.37512/08 N 5 recovery notice, he had only sought instalment facility. Therefore, his case that he was not in possession from 2004 is not a plea which may not be open to him to urge. As far as the period prior to 15.12.2007 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not press before me. As far as the period after 15.12.2007 is concerned, it is clear that though the petitioner was issued with Ext.P7 notice, he was not able to make good his case. The contradiction apparently arising from Ext.P8 Agreement led to it not being relied on and, therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the contention. Learned counsel for the petitioner then would argue that there is a case that Exts.P9 and P10 do not contain the period for which the petitioner was made liable to pay the amount. Learned Government Pleader points out that though in Ext.P1, the amount demanded is for the period from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2007, pursuant to Ext.P6 Judgment, the petitioner made payments and it is after giving credit to the amounts which were already paid, that the present demand notice is issued. In such circumstances, WPC.37512/08 N 6 I do not see any just reason to interfere in the matter and the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge