IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34427 of 2004(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD., A BODY OF CORPORATE HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE 123 ANGAPPA NAICHEN STREET, CHENNAI & BRANCHES AMONG OTHER PLACES AT 4TH FLOOR CAPITAL CENTRE, TRIVANDRUM, REP. PROCEEDINGS BY ITS BR.MANAGER, TRIVANDRUM, BRANCH & P.A.HOLDER BINO THOMAS, S/O.N.K.THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM. 3. ABOOBACKER KUNJU, ANOOP MANZIL, VIDHYA GARDEN, VALLAKKADAVU P.O. TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM. R1,R2, R4 & R5 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE COMPANY IN FAVOUR OF THE BRANCH MANAGER DATED 13.2.2003 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF REPAYMENT EXECUTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.3.2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.6.2003 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED 20.6.2003 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 7.5.2003 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD INDICATING ACCEPTANCE OF EXT.P7 DATED NIL. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.8.2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT INDICATING RECEIPT OF EXT.P9 DATED 29.8.2003 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND SNOTICE DATED 24.8.2004 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ATTACHMENT SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 24.8.2004 EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF THE VEHICLE DATED NIL. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.9.2004 EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.9.2004 EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS DATED NIL. EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 10.11.2004 EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN ACCOMPANYING THE APPEAL DATED 12.11.2004 EXT.P20 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.11.2004 RECEIVED ONLY ON 16.11.2004 TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 34427 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of motor vehicle tax in respect of a mini bus bearing registration No. KL-01-F-2212. Even though the period of demand is not mentioned in Exts. P11 and P12, Government Pleader submitted that arrears pertains to three quarters commencing from 1.4.2003 to 31.12.2003. According to the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to exemption based on G forms furnished on 7.5.2003 and the vehicle was repossessed by it only on 6.5.2003. However, according to respondents, petitioner repossessed the vehicle on 24.4.2003. It makes no difference as to the date of repossession because petitioner was admittedly in possession of the vehicle at least for a part of the second quarter of the year 2003. Since G form furnished is beyond time, vehicle is liable for payment of tax for the second quarter, that is for the period from 1.4.2003 to 30.6.2003. Even though G form is belated for the second quarter, I feel it should have been accepted for the 2 remaining period when the vehicle was admittedly garaged by the petitioner. It is also on record that the second respondent granted towing permit to the vehicle which means that it was unfit for plying. In the circumstances, W.P. is partly allowed, directing respondents 4 and 5 to limit recovery from the petitioner to the period from 1.4.2003 to 30.6.2003 and grant exemption for remaining period, it was with the petitioner. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 3