IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 23723 of 2000(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (IN-CHARGE) MR.P.M.MATHEW. BY SR.ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE RESPONDENTS: ----------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI T.C.R. CHAND THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.39942/2000 IN OP.NO.23723/2000 Y ------------- Dismissed 17/3/2008 Sd/- P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE SOCIETY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 21/1/92. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/9/99 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 27/9/99 EXECUTED BY ONE MR.ZIAD ABBAS WITH THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY MR.ZIAD ABBAS DTD. 27/9/99. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 9/12/99 BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/2/2000 BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7B TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/2/2000 BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8B TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DTD. L6/3/2000. EXT.P10A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/7/2000 BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10B TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 7/7/2000 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/7/2000 BY THE RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P11B TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 7/7/2000 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/7/2000 BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12B TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 7/7/2000 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P.R.RAMAN, J. --------------------------- O.P.No.23723 OF 2000 ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank, who is also the financier in the purchase of three buses by a primary co-operative society. That primary society is not made a party in this original petition. They committed default in repayment of the amount and admittedly the petitioner based on the hire purchase agreement re-possessed the vehicles in 1995 and thereafter initiated steps for recovery of the amount due to them by filing an arbitration suit under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act before the Arbitrator. Eventually, a decree was passed. In the meantime, the vehicles were also attached at the instance of the petitioner and sold on 20/9/1999. During the period after it was re-possessed by the petitioner until it was sold on 20/9/1999, proceedings for the recovery of tax in respect of the vehicles were initiated by the department against the petitioner. Challenging the said proceedings, this original petition is filed. It is now settled that by virtue of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the financier in possession of the vehicle is also liable for payment of tax jointly and -2- O.P.No.23723/2000 severally. True in case such tax is recovered from the financier, they may be entitled to recover the same from the hirer. But in this case admittedly the tax became due after 1995 i.e. after the vehicles were re-possessed by the petitioner. Though it is contended by the Senior Counsel Sri A.M.Shaffique that there was an attachment and pursuant to the attachment, the vehicles were not put in use, admittedly, it was sold only on 20/9/1999 at a time when the buses were continued to be in possession of the petitioner. If, as a matter of fact, the buses were not put in use, it would have been open for the petitioner to apply for tax exemption by filing 'G' Form, which was also not done in this case. In the above circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot disclaim his liability to pay tax during the period in question. 2. It was then contended by the learned counsel that based on Ext.P3 agreement, primary society is liable for all outstanding tax dues on the vehicles. Certainly there is a contract between the petitioner and the third party to purchase the vehicles. That is not binding on the financier. If the petitioner has ultimately become liable to pay this amount, he may work out his remedy based on Ext.P7 against the purchaser; but no relief can be granted to the petitioner as against the demand now raised by the -3- O.P.No.23723/2000 Motor Vehicle Authorities. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this petition. Original petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv. -4- O.P.No.23723/2000 P.R.RAMAN, J. -------------------------- O.P.NO.23723 OF 1999 -------------------------- JUDGMENT/O R D E R 22nd November, 2007 -5- O.P.No.23723/2000