IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 747 of 2009() -------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.12404/1997 DT.2.3.2009) ---------------------------- APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------ V.S.MATHEW, POOVATHUNGAL, UPPUKANDAM P.O., (VIA) KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. A.R.VINOD, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, PATHIALIMURIYIL, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THES FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A. No.747 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-5A/ 7160. He sold the vehicle on 12.1.1996. It appears the transferee did not pay the tax. Therefore, he was served with Ext.P1 demand for tax, for the period from 1.10.1996 to 31.3.1997. He filed a representation against that demand. This Court by Ext.P2 judgment directed to consider the representation. The representation was considered and rejected by Ext.P3 communication by the Regional Transport Officer. So, challenging Ext.P3, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the appellant being the registered owner, is liable to pay the tax. The person in possession may also be liable. But, that will not affect the liability of the appellant. Based on that finding, the Writ Petition was dismissed. This W.A.No.747/2009 2 appeal is filed challenging the above judgment of the learned Single Judge. 2. Mr.G.Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle was changed hands several times and it is not available now. Even in the face of the direction issued by this Court, the police was not able to trace it. Since the vehicle was neither used nor kept for use in the State, even though he is the registered owner he is not liable to pay the tax. 3. Going by the averments in the appeal memorandum, it is clear that the vehicle was very much available in the State during the first quarter of 1997. There is no 'G Form' in relation to that quarter. So, the statutory presumption that the vehicle was kept for use in the State will come into operation. So, in relation to the period covered by Ext.P1, the aforementioned contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Those contentions may be relevant, if a demand is raised for subsequent periods. We are not expressing any opinion on that matter. Since the appellant continued to be W.A.No.747/2009 3 the registered owner upto 31.3.1997 and the vehicle was not covered by any 'G Form', the demand under Ext.P1 is fully justified. So, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps