IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38143 of 2010(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- K.S.VIJAYAN,AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.SUBRAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,EDATHALA KARA,ALUVA EAST VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,SUB-REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,ALUVA.PIN-683 101. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,EXCISE OFFICE, BADIYADUKKA,KASARAGOD DISTRICT,PIN-671 121. 3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD(DISTRICT),PIN-671 121. 4. THOMAS JACOB,AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.CHACO JACOB,PULIYANAM HOUSE,KOLANI.P.O, THODUPUZHA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT.PIN-685 584. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 38143 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the registered owner of a tanker lorry bearing No.KL-7 D 6800. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was sold to the 4th respondent as early as in the year 2003, by virtue of Ext.P1 sale agreement. It is further stated that the petitioner came to know that the vehicle in question was taken into custody by the authorities of the Excise Department on the basis of allegation of illegal transportation of spirit. It is revealed from Ext.P2 notice issued by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Kasaragod that the vehicle was taken into custody in the year 2002 itself, in connection with Crime No.36/2003. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had issued Ext.P3 memo demanding payment of motor vehicle tax with respect to the vehicle, for the periods from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2010. On receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 objections before the 1st respondent, stating that the petitioner is not liable for payment of the tax demanded since the vehicle was in the custody of the Excise authorities and since the WP(C) .38143/2010 2 vehicle was transferred to the 4th respondent as early as in the year 2003. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering Ext.P4 objection the 1st respondent is taking steps for recovery of the tax amount demanded. 3. The question as to whether the petitioner is liable for payment of tax for the relevant periods covered under Ext.P3 memo, is a matter which need be adjudicated on the basis of relevant materials. According to the petitioner the vehicle was already transferred possession to the 4th respondent and further the vehicle was taken into custody by the authorities of the Excise Department. Under such circumstances whether the petitioner is liable for payment of tax amount demanded is a matter which need be decided after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and to the 4th respondent. Hence I am of the view that a proper adjudication by the 1st respondent on the basis of Ext.P4 objections is necessary, before proceeding with steps for recovery of the amounts due. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to conduct an adjudication on the basis of Ext.P3 memo and Ext.P4 explanations submitted, after affording an opportunity of hearing WP(C) .38143/2010 3 to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent at the earliest possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Needless to say that the recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P3 can be proceeded only after finalising the matter as per the above directions. 6. It is made clear that the 1st respondent will be at liberty to call for necessary reports from the 2nd respondent regarding custody of the vehicle during the relevant period. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .38143/2010 4