IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29754 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ M/S.INDUS IND BANK LTD.(VEHICLE FINANCE DIVISION)"SHALOM TOWERS" 34/138-D BYE PASS NORTH END,EDAPPALLY, KOCHI- 682 024.REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL EXECUTIVE PARTHEESH.S. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PUNALUR PIN-691 305. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001. 3. TAHSILDAR(RR), ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 011. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, EDAPPALLY PIN 682 024. 5. N.RAVEENDRAN, THUSHARA,AGSTHIACODE,ANCHAL PO, KOLLAM-691 306. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.29754 of 2010-T. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a company which carries on banking activities. The petitioner had financed the 5th respondent for purchase of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-2K- 5131. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan amount, possession of the vehicle was surrendered to the petitioner. Later, on payment of the amounts in default, the vehicle was released to the 5th respondent. Meanwhile the 5th respondent submitted a complaint to the first respondent requesting to collect motor vehicle tax due with respect to the vehicle in question, from the petitioner and also to order payment of compensation, alleging that the seizure was illegal. Ext.P1 is the reply issued by the first respondent to the 5th respondent declining such request. However, an endorsement was made in Ext.P1, WP(C).No.29754 of 2010-T. 2 which is addressed to the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is liable for payment of motor vehicle tax with respect to the vehicle, since they were in custody of the vehicle and had failed to submit 'G' form claiming exemption. 2. The endorsement in Ext.P1 was challenged by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent by filing revision under Section 24 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Through Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent issued a letter stating that the revision filed is not maintainable and the proper remedy is to file appeal under Sec.23 of the Act before the Deputy Transport Commissioner. Since the petitioner had not taken any further steps, the tax amount due was sought to be recovered by initiating revenue recovery steps. Exts.P5 and P6 are the demand notices issued under the Act. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that no adjudication was made by the first respondent before taking WP(C).No.29754 of 2010-T. 3 steps for recovery of the amounts. It is further contended that no demand was raised against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is challenging the recovery steps initiated. 4. In a statement filed by the first respondent it is mentioned that, the demand notice was issued against the 5th respondent for payment of arrears of tax for the period from 1.7.2007 to 31.12.2009. The 5th respondent submitted that the vehicle was repossessed by the petitioner. Under such circumstance copy of the demand notice (memo) was forwarded by registered post acknowledgment due to the petitioner and the petitioner had received the same. Exts.R1(a) and (b) are produced along with the statement which will reveal that the copy of the memo was served on the petitioner. It is further stated that since the petitioner was in possession of the vehicle they are liable to make payment of the motor vehicles tax due, as per Sec.9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. It is also pointed out WP(C).No.29754 of 2010-T. 4 that the petitioner had not filed any G form claiming exemption under Sec.5 of the Act, for the relevant periods. 5. From the facts of the case as narrated above, it is noticed that the petitioner had chosen to file revision against the endorsement in Ext.P1 before the 2nd respondent. Going by the provisions contained under Sec.24(1)(b) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act it is evident that the power conferred on the Transport Commissioner is only to examine the records connected with an appeal under Sec.23, on the basis of an application. It is evident that the power under Sec.24(1)(a) is a suo moto power. Under such circumstance I do not find any fault with Ext.P4 reply issued by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to invoke appellate remedy. 6. With respect to the contention of the petitioner that there was no demand raised against the petitioner before initiating the revenue recovery proceedings, I notice that the petitioner was served with a demand as per WP(C).No.29754 of 2010-T. 5 Ext.R1(a). However, it is evident that before raising such demand and before taking recovery steps, the first respondent has not conducted any adjudication with opportunity afforded to the petitioner. The liability need be fixed on the basis of an adjudication as to whether the petitioner was in possession of the vehicle during the relevant periods or as to whether the 5th respondent is liable for payment of the tax for the said periods. 7. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if the first respondent is directed to conduct an adjudication, after affording opportunity to all parties concerned, and to take a final decision fixing payment of tax with respect to the arrears in question. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to conduct an adjudication for the purpose of fixing liability for payment of motor vehicles tax due with respect to the vehicle bearing registration WP(C).No.29754 of 2010-T. 6 No.KL-2K-5131, with proper notice to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent, and after affording personal hearing to both of them. 9. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the first respondent as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 10. Till such time a decision is taken by the 5th respondent as directed above, recovery steps initiated against the petitioner as per Exts.P5 and P6 demand notices shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-