IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4560 of 2011(T) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- V.GURUVAYURAPPAN, S/O.LATE A.VELUPILLAI AMRUTHA BHAVANAM, NEAR KSRTC, MANJAKULAM, PALAKKAD BY ADVS. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. 2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE, (MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4560 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is the demand raised for payment of motor vehicle tax at the enhanced rate, with respect to stage carriage vehicle owned by the petitioner bearing No.KL-9/B-6667. 2. The registering authority had effected enhancement of seating capacity on the basis of the finding that the stage carriage vehicle in question was plying on the basis of a mofussil permit during the relevant period. According to the petitioner the vehicle was sold in the year 2003 and that the enhancement of seating capacity was endorsed only when the transferee had applied for effecting change of ownership. However, it is noticed that the demand raised under Ext.P1 is on the basis of an order passed by the Commissioner of Transports, in a revision filed by a transferee, observing that the petitioner being the owner for the relevant period is liable for payment of the tax due. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner points out a decision of this court in Shiju Vs. RTA (2010 (4) KLT 848) to contend that a retrospective demand for payment of tax at the enhanced rate pursuant to endorsements effected increasing the seating W.P.(C).4560/11 -2- capacity, is unsustainable. However, it is noticed that aggrieved by Ext.P1 demand the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent as evidenced from Ext.P2. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the appeal recovery steps are now being pursued on issuing Ext.P4 and P5 demand notices under the Revenue Recovery Act. 4. Considering the factual situations and pendency of the statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that the matter can be disposed of directing that authority to have a consideration and early disposal of the appeal. Taking note of the fact that the issue now stands covered by the decision cited supra, I am of the view that till the disposal of the appeal the recovery steps can be kept in abeyance. 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time the appeal is disposed of, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P4 and P5 shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb W.P.(C).4560/11 -3-