IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 23725 of 2008(Y) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE (NOW MERGED WITH INDUS IND BANK) SHALOM TOWERS, 34/138 D, BYE PASS NORTH END, EDAPALLY, KOCHI-682 024. REP. BY ITS LEGAL EXECUTIVE UMA SHANKAR. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. JOINT R.T.O, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. TAHSILDAR.R.R, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMBAYIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 23725 OF 2008 Y -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks a direction not to demand any interest as per Exts.P4 and P4(a) and issue a mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to accept a sum of Rs.16,800/= plus permissible collection charges as per the Revenue Recovery Act. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a Public Limited Company which merged with Indus Ind Bank Ltd. A vehicle was given on hire to one Mr. Sanjay Varghese by agreement dated 31.01.2007 and the vehicle was later assigned with Registration No.KL/3-3934 and there was default in hire instalments which led to the repossession of the vehicle. It was garaged and it was got verified by the AMVI. Petitioner was issued with notices under Sections 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act to pay a sum of Rs.33,600/= under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. A Writ Petition was filed as O.P. No.13522/02. Peteitioner paid WPC.23725/08 Y 2 Rs.16,800/= as per an interim order for staying the revenue recovery proceedings. Later, vide Ext.P5, the Original Petition was dismissed. According to petitioner, he is liable to pay only the balance amount, ie. Rs.16,800/= and there is no provision for interest under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and there is only provision for additional tax, when tax is not paid, as provided under Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, SRO 365/99 stipulates notional payment of fifty per cent of the tax due when the payment was made after six months and there is no stipulation for payment of interest. Accordingly, the demand for interest from the date of Ext.P4 is stated to be arbitrary. 2. A Statement has been filed by the second respondent. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: Petitioner did not make payment of the amount even after recovery steps were taken and only after direction, the peteitioner was forced to remit Rs.16,800/=. It is stated that the petitioner is liable to pay interest at the rate of twelve per cent WPC.23725/08 Y 3 on the arrears of public revenue. The provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 clearly provide that any amount due under the Act shall be recoverable in the same manner as an arrear of public revenue due on land. The arrears carry twelve per cent interest and the petitioner is liable to pay five per cent on the arrears as collection charges. 3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for petitioner reiterates his contentions. Learned Government Pleader points out that if payment is made prior to the recovery steps being taken under the Revenue Recovery Act, interest may not be payable. But, once requisition is made to the Recovery Officer and amount is recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act, it attracts liability to pay interest and that at twelve per cent. In this case, actually the petitioner has been served with demand notice as Ext.P4(a). No doubt, the rate of interest was not specifically mentioned. But, none-the-less, the liability to pay interest is specifically indicated. The fact that there is an WPC.23725/08 Y 4 omission to mention the rate of interest as such, would not absolve the petitioner from the liability to pay interest, when in law, the petitioner is liable to pay interest. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge