IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26704 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ T.SELVARAJ, S/O. THANKAPPAN,DHANALAKSHMI MANDIRAM, MUNDAPLAVILA, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE R.T.O. PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE THAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY NEYYATTINKARA. 5. BAIJU THAMPI,S/O.THAMPI,ANITHA BHAVAN, KUNNUMPURAM, CHENNIYODE, KANNAMMOOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 6. ABU HASSAN, PROPRIETOR, SHAH AUTO CONSULTING, KALIYIKKAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. M/S.HARSH INVESTMENTS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, NO.334, MINT STREET, 3RD FLOOR,CHENNAI - 79. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.26704 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery proceedings initiated against him pursuant to Ext.P4 notice for realisation of Motor Vehicle Tax due with respect to vehicle bearing Registration No:KRU.4120. According to the petitioner, he was the owner of the said vehicle which was under hypothication with respondent No.7. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was repossessed by respondents 6 and 7, pursuant to default committed in payment of heir charges, as early as in August 2002. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know that the 7th respondent had sold the vehicle to the 5th respondent and the 5th respondent was in possession of the vehicle. It is further known that the 5th respondent had already dismantled the vehicle. In order to prove the fact regarding possession of the vehicle, the petitioner had produced Ext.P5, which is a 'kachit' on the basis of which the vehicle W.P(C) No.26704 of 2009 2 in question was released from the City Traffic Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, by the 5th respondent, when the vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that after the 7th respondent had taken over the vehicle in August 2002, he has no possession or control over the vehicle. But Exts.P2 and P3 memos were issued by the third respondent against the petitioner demanding Motor Vehicle Tax due with respect to the vehicle for the period from 1.7.2007 to 30.9.2008 and 1.1.2009 to 31.3.2009. Petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P6 objection before the third respondent stating the above facts and denying the liability for payment of the tax demanded. Complaint of the petitioner is that, without taking into consideration of Ext.P6, now steps for recovery has been initiated as evidenced by Ext.P4 notice demanding an amount of Rs.28,474/-. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction to quash Exts.P2, P3 and P4. W.P(C) No.26704 of 2009 3 3. It is noticed that the petitioner had raised objection against Exts.P2 and P3 memos on the ground that he is not in actual possession and control of the vehicle after August 2002. Going by the provisions in the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, person who is liable to pay tax is either the registered owner or the person having control and possession over the vehicle. It is contended by the petitioner that after the financier took over the possession of the vehicle, the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax, with respect to the period they were keeping the vehicle. Further contention is that since the vehicle was transferred by the financier to the 5th respondent and the 5th respondent was in ownership, possession and control of the vehicle, 5th respondent is the person liable to pay tax for the subsequent periods. In support of the above contention, petitioner had pointed out the decision of this court in NPR Finance Ltd; Vs. State of Kerala [2002 (1) KLT 591]. W.P(C) No.26704 of 2009 4 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the matter need adjudication at the hands of the third respondent. It is only just and proper in the interest of justice that the third respondent shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner, before proceeding with any further steps for realisation of the tax amount from the petitioner. 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider and disposed of Ext.P6 objections raised against Exts.P2 and P3 demands, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also after issuing notice to respondents 5 to 7. The 3rd respondent shall issue a speaking order on the merits of the objections and finally fixing the specific liabilities of the parties concerned, as early as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondents are directed to keep in abeyance further proceedings pursuant W.P(C) No.26704 of 2009 5 to Ext.P4 notice for realisation of the amounts covered under Exts.P2 and P3, pending finalisation of the proceedings by the third respondent as directed above. Needless to say that any of the parties are at liberty to invoke the appellate remedy available under the statute, if they are aggrieved by the order which may be issued by the 3rd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. app/-