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. 34573 of 2005(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ N.H. KAJA HUSSAIN, NECHIYIL HOUSE, MEPPARAMBA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/ TAXATION OFFICER, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT 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).34573/2005-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 02/07/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE ASSESSMENT SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED NIL . EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/03/04. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 02/07/03. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION, DATED NIL. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).13253/04 DATED 01/10/04. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 08/10/2004. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 19/03/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34573 OF 2005 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the Transport Commissioner dismissing the revision filed by him challenging Ext.P3 appellate order of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Thrissur. Feeling aggrieved by the demand of motor vehicles tax allegedly for the period covered by G Form, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the appellate authority. Since the appeal was dismissed by Ext.P3, which was affirmed by Ext.P7 order in revision by the Transport Commissioner, the petitioner was bound to pay the tax demanded. Since he failed to pay the amount, the District Collector issued Ext.P8 notice under Section 65 of the Revenue Recovery Act proposing to arrest and detain the petitioner. In the above background, this writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P7 and P8. 2. Ext.P7 is challenged mainly on the ground that the periods in respect of which tax is demanded were covered by valid G Forms. The revisional authority called for the files and found that the G Forms were rejected by the taxation officer for the reason that the vehicle was not found where it was stated to the W.P.(C) No.34573/2005 2 garaged in the G Forms. Based on that finding, the petitioner's claim founded on submission of G Form was rejected. I find nothing wrong with the finding of the statutory revisional authority in Ext.P7. Against Ext.P8 this Court granted stay on condition he pays Rs.50,000/- within one month from 12.12.2005. He paid the amount. The stay was further extended on condition he pays Rs.1,00,000/- within two weeks from 23.01.2006. The petitioner failed to pay the said amount . Therefore, there was no stay against Ext.P8 after the first week of February, 2006. So, Ext.P8 must have been executed or he must have paid the tax due. I find no valid ground has been raised against Ext.P8 warranting interference against the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ext.P8 is a notice issued to him to appear on 7.4.2004 at 12.30 p.m. at the Collectorate and show cause why he should not be committed to Civil Prison. If the petitioner has valid ground against Ext.P8 he should appear and show cause. In view of the above position, this writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps