IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 2905 of 2005(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.C.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KUMARAN, THAYYIL CHANDROTH, ULIKKAL, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. K.P. PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2905 of 2005(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : PHOTO COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 20.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 2905 OF 2005 ......................................................................... Dated this the 28th September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the steps taken by the respondents in the course of realisation of the amount due towards tax arrears in respect of the vehicle KL. 13/ 4215 for the period from 01.04.1999 to 30.06.2004. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle in fact was caused to be dismantled much earlier and the position was duly intimated to the concerned respondents; which however is strongly rebutted from the part of the first respondent, who has filed a report pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. It is stated in the said report that the tax arrears in respect of the said vehicle for the period 01.06.1999 to 30.06.2004 is Rs.33,600/- plus additional tax coming to a total of Rs.50,400/- which was demanded as per the communication dated 23.06.2004 sent by registered post. Despite service of W.P.(C) No. 2905 OF 2005 2 notice/demand, the petitioner did not pay any heed to the same, under which circumstance, the matter was referred to the Revenue authorities through the District Collector, leading to Ext.P1 notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is also specifically contended in paragraph 2 of the said report, that the contention of the petitioner that dismantling of the vehicle was intimated to the first respondent, is not at all correct and no such intimation was ever served to the first respondent at any point of time. 2. But for the vague allegation in the Writ Petition that the vehicle was dismantled and position was intimated to the first respondent, no materials have been produced by the petitioner to substantiate the said contention and as to the satisfaction of the requirement as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law, if at all the vehicle was dismantled, to avoid tax liability any further. This being the position, this Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the petitioner and the challenge raised against Ext.P1 proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act W.P.(C) No. 2905 OF 2005 3 fails. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on an earlier occasion, the coercive proceedings were intercepted by passing appropriate interim orders, subject to the condition that a portion of the liability was satisfied by the petitioner, as specified. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has complied with such directions contained in the interim orders dated 02.11.2005, 18.12.2006. and 29.04.2008, remitting the amounts specified therein, to enjoy the benefit of the interim orders. Since the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amounts have already been satisfied, the petitioner is liable to satisfy only the balance amount covered by Ext. P1 and such other amounts towards interest and collection charges, if any. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the balance liability by way of 'four' equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 30.10.2010 to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the W.P.(C) No. 2905 OF 2005 4 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if any default is committed in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk