IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 24720 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.REMADEVI, W/O. BALAKRISHNAN, POURNAMI, P.O. EDNEER BY ADV. MR. A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KASARAGOD 2. TOJI ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, KALLUR, RAJAPURAM P.O., ANANDASRAM (VIA) HOSDURG. 3. TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KASARAGOD. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 24720 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Exts.P6 & P7 notices, for recovery of Motor Vehicle Tax due with respect to the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-14/B-7772. According to the petitioner the vehicle in question was exchanged with another vehicle belonging to the 2nd respondent, by virtue of Ext.P1 agreement, as early as on 25.07.2005, and the vehicle No.KL-14/B-7772 is not in his ownership and possession from that date onwards. When the tax was demanded the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.(C) No.1203/2007. Through Ext.P4 judgment the petitioner was relegated to approach the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent was directed to take appropriate action in the matter on issuing notice to the petitioner as well as to the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3 is the W.P.(C)No. 24720 of 2009 -2- order issued in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P4 judgment. Without adverting to the dispute raised by the petitioner based on the change of ownership, the 1st respondent observed that the petitioner, being the registered owner, is liable to pay the tax. Hence the arrears was demanded to be paid within 7 days. The revenue recovery steps has now been initiated since the petitioner failed to pay the arrears pursuant to Ext.P3 notice. 2. Going by the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the registered owner as well as the person having possession and control of the vehicle are liable to pay Motor Vehicle Tax. Section 9 of the said Act provides that the person succeeding ownership, possession or control of the motor vehicle is liable to pay the arrears of tax if any due for the period when the vehicle was in ownership and possession of its previous owner (transferor). But Sub-Section 2 of Section 9 makes it clear that the liability to pay tax on the person who has transfered the ownership will not be affected, merely because the W.P.(C)No. 24720 of 2009 -3- ownership and possession transfered. Section 13 (2) of the Act provides that the Motor Vehicle in respect of which any amount is due or its accessories, can be distrained and sold in pursuance of realisation of any amount of tax due. 3. Going by the provisions quoted above, it is clear and evident that in the case at hand, the 2nd respondent is also liable for payment of tax, along with the liability upon the vehicle. It is evident from Ext.P4 judgment that this court had relegated the petitioner to the 1st respondent with direction to that respondent to consider his contentions. The 1st respondent ought have issued notice to the 2nd respondent and conducted an adjudication before proceeding with the recovery steps. The 1st respondent also could have resorted to take action of distrain against the vehicle if available, or if it could be traced out. Having not resorted to any such methods, the steps of recovery now initiated against the petitioner cannot be justified. 4. Therefore the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to conduct fresh adjudication in W.P.(C)No. 24720 of 2009 -4- the matter. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders after issuing notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and after conducting personal hearing. The 1st respondent shall also take steps to find out the vehicle and to proceed with action of distrain and sale of the vehicle for realisation of the amount. Final decision in this regard may be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. All further steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Exts.P6 & P7 notices against the petitioner is directed to be kept in abeyance till fresh orders are issued by the 1st respondent. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/