IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 981 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18259/2011 Dated 06/07/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ P.MOHAMMED @ KUNHANI,S/O.KOYAKUTTY, PULIYAKUTH HOUSE, PATTIKKAD PO, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (TAXATION OFFICER),MALAPPURAM,PIN 676 505. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE,PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 679 322. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.981 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge relegating the appellant to appellate remedy i.e. to file appeal against arrear demand of motor vehicle tax in respect of the stage carriage operated by the appellant. Appellant has stated that the tax liability based on seating capacity is covered by judgment of this court in SHIJU VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER reported in 2010(4) KLT 848. Even though we do not find anything wrong with the suggestion of the learned Single Judge to pursue alternate remedy, what we notice is that the RTO has just issued notice pointing out short collection of tax based on audit objection. He has not stated as to what is the audit objection and what is the circumstance that led to short levy. The impugned order namely, Ext.P4 is issued without even giving details of the nature of additional liability appellant is called upon to pay. The RTO has issued the order in an indifferent and 2 callous manner which has to be necessarily deprecated. We, therefore, allow the appeal vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct the RTO to go through the judgment of this court relied on by the appellant and consider whether he has additional liability in terms of the statute and if so, pass fresh order after giving opportunity to the appellant giving reasons in support of the demand of tax. If any modification is called for in the additional demand raised against the appellant, the same shall be done in the revised order to be issued. All coercive steps for recovery will remain stayed for three weeks from now, within which time the RTO will pass fresh orders substituting or recalling impugned order and if appellant has still grievance against the detailed order to be passed by the RTO, the appellant can pursue remedy by filing appeal before the appellate authority. Seizure of vehicle and recovery after three weeks will be based on the revised order passed by the RTO which can be appealed against, if appellant has grievance. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms