IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34632 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.S.RAJAN, AGED 45 YEARS, KERALA RAISON HOTEL, ANAMUDI, MARAYUR. P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IDUKKI (TAXATION) - 685 611. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM - 685 613 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.34632 of 2010-D ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of an Omni Bus bearing registration No.KL 06/7777. According to the petitioner it is an imported vehicle with left hand drive facility. Therefore, the petitioner could not use the vehicle and subsequently it was transferred to Ernakulam for making necessary alteration. It is stated that, for the period from 1.12.2004 to 30.9.2009, the petitioner had claimed exemption, on submitting intimation under Form G. But the first respondent had issued demand for payment of motor vehicles tax for the above said period at the rate prescribed for private service vehicle, which was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority. Ext.P1 is the order issued by the appellate authority. It was found that the petitioner had submitted stoppage intimation in Form G for the period from 1.7.1998 to 30.11.2004 and exemption was allowed for the said period. But thereafter the vehicle was shifted to Ernakulam on the basis of towing permission. But the non use intimation given for the subsequent periods were not allowed, W.P(C) No.34632 of 2010-D 2 based on a verification report of the field authorities, to the effect that the vehicle was not seen garaged in the same premises as mentioned in the Form G intimations. So also for the quarters ending on 30.9.2006, 31.12.2005 and for the period 1.10.2007 to 30.9.2009, the petitioner has not submitted any Form G intimations. However, the appellate authority found that the records submitted by the first respondent was incomplete. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the first respondent observing that the petitioner is eligible for exemption for the period the vehicle was not used or kept for use and proper intimation of non-use was submitted. It is also observed that the petitioner is eligible for exemption for the period for which the vehicle was off-road as per the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The appellate authority also found that as per the Registration certificate and demand notice, the class of vehicle is Omnibus without permit and Fitness Certificate. But tax was demanded at the rate prescribed for private service vehicle. Therefore the demand notice was set aside and the first respondent was directed to take a fresh decision. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to Ext.P1 W.P(C) No.34632 of 2010-D 3 order of the appellate authority, the first respondent had issued a further demand as per Ext.P2 claiming a total amount of Rs.70,890/-. It is stated that Ext.P2 was issued totally discarding the observations contained in Ext.P1 order of the appellate authority and the directions contained therein has not been given effect. It is stated that no proper adjudication was done after affording any effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Now, pursuant to Ext.P2, revenue recovery steps has been initiated on issuing Ext.P3 notice under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Hence the petitioner is seeking to set aside Ext.P2 and the consequential recovery steps. 3. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, it is evident that Ext.P2 demand was issued by the first respondent without proper compliance of the directions contained in Ext.P2. The first respondent ought to have conducted a fresh adjudication on the basis of Ext.P1 order after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his contentions. Since such a procedure was not adopted by the first respondent, I am of the view that Ext.P2 is not sustainable in the eye of law. W.P(C) No.34632 of 2010-D 4 4. Hence Ext.P2 and the consequential recovery steps are hereby quashed. The first respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and to take a fresh decision in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P1 order, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A fresh decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Needless to say that recovery of amounts now demanded under Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance till a fresh decision is taken and can be proceeded only subject to outcome of such decision. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ab