IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 15643 of 2006(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD., FIRST FLOOR, ARAFATH TOWERS, VELIYANNUR, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, P.B.RAMESH. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.RAVIDASAN.N.S. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. BIJU P.N. PANGARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.V.K.PRAVEEN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.15643/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT.26.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DT.31.3.2005 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/17103/TC/05 DT 23.3.2006 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15643 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is the financier of a vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-4/K-3119. The 3rd respondent was its registered owner. Since he committed default to pay the amount due to the petitioner, the vehicle was seized on 9.11.2004. The taxation officer issued Ext.P1 demand for motor vehicles tax in relation to the said vehicle for the period from 1.04.2003 to 31.12.2004 to the petitioner. It filed a revision against that order before the Transport Commissioner. The said revision was dismissed by Ext.P3. The ground taken by the petitioner is that he took possession of the vehicle only on 9.11.2004. Therefore, it is not liable to pay the arrears of tax upto that period. But, the said contention cannot be accepted in view of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The registered owner as well as the person in possession is liable to pay the tax in relation to that vehicle. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with Ext.P1 or P3. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps