IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 17894 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NICCO UCO ALLIANCE CREDIT LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S. OVERSEAS SANMAR FINANCE LIMITED) REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR OFFICER, JOY VARGHESE, SOUTH SQUARE BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, AVENUE ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH(SR) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SMT.G.GEETHISHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER (LAW), CENTRAL ZONE-II, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (ASSISTANT REGISTERING AUTHORITY), ERNAKULAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 17894/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE STOPPAGE REPORT FORM DATED NIL. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 31.7.2000. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DATED 30.10.2000. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 3.3.2004. `/TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 17894 OF 2004-E ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner is a financier, which granted a loan to Mr. Saleem Baig for the purchase of an Omni Bus bearing registration No. KL-7/E 1610. Since the said loanee failed to pay the amounts due in time, the vehicle was seized by the petitioner on 18.10.1994. Non-use intimation of the vehicle was reported to the Taxation Officer, as per Ext.P1. The petitioner submits, while so, the 4th respondent served a demand notice on it for an amount of Rs.52,500/-, as the tax due for the period from 1.10.1994 to 30.6.1995. It filed an appeal before the statutory appellate authority. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P2 order dated 31.7.2000. The petitioner filed a revision before the Transport Commissioner. The said revision was dismissed by Ext.P4 order dated 3.3.2004. This writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P4 order of the Transport Commissioner and seeking a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay tax for the period covered by Ext.P1 Form. 2. The 4th respondent has filed a statement, stating that the tax in WPC 17894/04 2 respect of the vehicle fell in arrears from 1.10.1994. The demand notice for payment of tax for the period from 1.10.1994 to 31.12.1994 was sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. The said notice was returned with the endorsement that the addressee is not known. Tax for the period from 1.1.1995 to 31.3.1995 also fell in arrears. Therefore, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector was directed to serve the demand notice for the period from 1.10.1994 to 31.3.1995. But, the said officer reported that the registered owner could not be traced out and the present whereabouts of the registered owner was not known. Since the vehicle was re-possessed by the financier, the petitioner herein, the notice was served on it on 4.1.1996. The petitioner, in the meantime, moved for instalment facility before the Government as well as this Court. It is also pointed out that the non-use intimation filed on 7.12.1994 was not in conformity with Section 5(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. It was not in the prescribed G Form. The exact place of garage or the date from which the vehicle was kept in the garage was not mentioned in the intimation. In addition to that, the petitioner has not mentioned the period for which exemption is WPC 17894/04 3 required, in Ext.P1. Though efforts were made to ascertain the non-use of the vehicle, the same did not yield any results. So, the non-use intimation was rejected. Therefore, the said respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Heard. The only way to avoid tax is to file the G Form in time, in view of Section 5(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. In this case, as rightly pointed out by the 4th respondent, Ext.P1 intimation does not show the exact place of garage of the vehicle. It does not say from which date to which date the vehicle is not proposed to be operated and exemption is claimed. Therefore, I find nothing wrong with the rejection of Ext.P1 and consequential demand of tax. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. 26th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/