IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 7700 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.M.JABBAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.V.M.MAKKAR,VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUPADY P.O.,MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY) MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. ICICI BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, EMGEE SQUARE BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 7700 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th May , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who was the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KL.17B/4840 is constrained to approach this Court because of the coercive steps stated as being pursued under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount stated as due as tax to the respondent Government in respect of the vehicle for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2009. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle was hypothecated to the third respondent Bank and because of failure in satisfying the monthly installments, the vehicle was seized by the third respondent on 28.08.2009 as borne by Ext. P1 inventory prepared on the said date and that this being the position, there is absolutely no liability for the petitioner to satisfy the tax in respect of the subsequent period of seizure, submits the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the contents of the statement, submits that the petitioner continues W.P.(C) No. 7700 OF 2010 2 to be the registered owner of the vehicle and this being the position, by virtue of Sec. 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the action that is being pursued by the respondents cannot be found fault with. However, the issue with regard to the liability of the Financier to remit the tax , in respect of the period after the seizure had come up for consideration before this Court on many an occasion and as per the rulings in N.P.R. Finance Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2002 (1) KLT 591), the law has been laid down in crystal clear terms that the Financier is very much liable in respect of the subsequent period after the seizure and it is for the Financier to submit G.Forms before the concerned authority, if the vehicle is not put in use. 3. There is considerable force in the contentions raised from the part of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already complied with the directions given by this Court, while intercepting the coercive steps as per the interim order dated 10.03.2010 and the petitioner has satisfied the entire liability till the date of seizure. W.P.(C) No. 7700 OF 2010 3 4. In the above circumstance, the Writ Petition is disposed of making it clear that no coercive steps shall be pursued against the petitioner, in respect of the period, after the seizure; more so when the disputed liability in this regard particularly taking over possession of the vehicle by the Financier is not seen chosen to be rebutted by the said respondent. In spite of completion of service of notice, the third respondent Bank/financier has not chosen to turn up before this Court to answer the averments and allegations. The respondents 1 and 2 are free to proceed against the third respondent for the tax liability in respect of the relevant period commencing from 01.10.2008 onwards. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk