IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6388 of 2011(W) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AUGUSTINE GEORGE @ RAJU,NELLAMTHADAM HOUSE,MANNARKAYAM.P.O,KANJIRAPPALLY,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.T.S.ANURAJ SRI.P.SANJAY SHENOI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB-REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686507. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 6388 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the registered owner of Heavy Goods Vehicle bearing No.KL 5 F 7544. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was taken into custody by the authorities of the Motor Vehicle Department on 22.10.2004 for non payment of tax as well as for other charges alleged. Ext.P3 is the cheque report prepared in this regard. It is stated that the vehicle was thereafter kept in custody of the respondents and the same is not yet released. Grievance of the petitioner is that, inspite of the vehicle being retained in custody of the respondents, Ext.P4 memo was issued demanding payment of motor vehicle tax for the period from 01.10.1998 to 30.09.2001 and from 01.01.2002 to 31.03.2010. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was payment of tax due for various periods during 2003 till 30.06.2003. But without noticing such payments, the tax for the entire period was demanded. It is also contended that since the vehicle was not put to use, the petitioner is not liable for payment of motor vehicle tax for the different periods demanded. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, W.P.(C). NO. 6388 OF 2011 2 contended that the petitioner has not filed any G-Form claiming exemption for any period during the vehicle was under detention. It is also pointed out that it is settled law by this time that, unless the petitioner seeks exemption for any particular period by submitting proper G-Forms, he could not claim exemption from payment of tax merely because the vehicle was in police custody. It is fairly pointed out by the petitioner that the question as to whether tax is liable to be paid with respect to vehicles which were taken into police custody for offences other than non payment of tax is pending consideration before a Full Bench of this Court awaiting final decision. 3. However, I take note of the fact that against Ext.P4 memo, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 objections. It is for the registering authority, at the first instance, to consider those objections and to take a decision. 4. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the respondent to conduct an adjudication on the basis of Ext.P5 objections raised and to take a decision regarding the liability, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the respondent at the earliest possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt W.P.(C). NO. 6388 OF 2011 3 of a copy of this judgment. It is observed that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any such decision, he will be at liberty to seek appropriate statutory remedy against the same. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE mns