IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 17392 of 2005(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOY. N.M., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, NELLIKUZHI VEEDU, EAST VAZHAPPALLY, MULAVOOR, MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH SRI.M.A.ABDUL SHUKOOR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 3. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL ZONE-2, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANADU. 4. SRI. JOHNY, S/O. MATHEW, PAMPAKUDACHALIL, PAYIPRA P.O., MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.17392/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.5.5.1996 EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF REQUEST LETTER DT.12.12.1996 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICENO.C6/KEE 5662/97 DT.22.1.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF REPLY CUM REQUEST LETTER DT.13.2.1997 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4(a): COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DT.13.2.1997. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.19.2.1997 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5(a): COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT OF EXT.P5 REPRESENTATION. EXT.P6: COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.12.5.2004 VIDE NO.C7/KEE 5662/TAX/EM ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF ORDER NO.C/1125/04/C2-II DT,11.3.2005 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO.C7/KEE 5662/TAX/EM DT,13.5.2005 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 17392 OF 2005-U ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner was the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing No. KEE 5662. He submits, he sold the vehicle under Ext.P1 agreement to the 4th respondent on 5.5.1996. He claims, he sent Ext.P2 intimation to the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam, the registering authority, regarding the transfer of the vehicle. Later, he was served with Ext.P3 notice dated 22.1.1997, claiming tax for the period from 1.10.1996 to 31.12.1996. The petitioner immediately sent Ext.P4 reply, stating that the vehicle has already been transferred and he has moved for transfer of the registration certificate also. So, he was not liable for the tax after the transfer. Ext.P4(a) would show that Ext.P4 was sent by registered post. It was followed by Ext.P5 representation before the R.T.O., Ernakulam, which was also sent by registered post, as evident from Ext.P5(a). Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext.P6 communication, directing him to pay the arrears of tax from 1.10.1996 to 31.3.1997 within seven days. The WPC 17392/05 2 petitioner filed an appeal against that order. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P7 order dated 11.3.2005. Thereafter, he was served with Ext.P8 notice demanding tax from 1.10.1996. Challenging Exts.P6, P7 and P8, this writ petition was filed. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. So, this Court can take that they do not seriously dispute the contentions of the petitioner. 2. When Ext.P4 intimation regarding the transfer of the vehicle was received, the registering authority could have cancelled the registration. It could have seized the vehicle. The Secretary, R.T.A could have cancelled the permit, if any, of the vehicle. None of these actions was taken. It is true, the registration cannot be transferred in favour of the 4th respondent, unless the necessary papers are submitted by the 4th respondent also. But, the petitioner is liable to pay the tax demanded as per Ext.P3, that is, up to 31.12.1996, as Ext.P7 order would show that the sale was intimated, as evident from the records of the case, only on 12.12.1996. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “The appellant was heard personally. On verification of records, it is seen that sale intimated on 12.12.96. But WPC 17392/05 3 other formalities not complied by the appellant as per Sections 50 and 51 of MV Act.” Going by the above finding also, the petitioner is bound to pay the tax for the quarter ending on 31.12.1996. The transfer could be completed, if only the transferee moves by taking appropriate steps. When sale of a vehicle takes places and intimation to that effect is given and the transferee does not move for registration of the vehicle in his name, the registering authority is bound to take necessary steps to cancel the registration of the vehicle. It is a great security risk to allow persons to possess and operate vehicles without registration in their name. It is true, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the registered owner as well as the person in possession are liable to pay the tax. But, in this case, whatever the petitioner has to do, has been done after the transfer of the vehicle. It was for the registering authority to take further action. Therefore, I feel that there is no justification for demanding tax from 1.1.1997, from the petitioner. It is WPC 17392/05 4 declared so. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. 5th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/