IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 10830 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHRIRAM INVESTMENT LIMITED,FIRST FLOOR, ARAFATH TOWERS,VELIYANNUR,THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,P.B.RAMESH. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,TRANSPORT BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,CENTRAL ZONE,THRISSUR. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,THRISSUR. 4. NALINI,W/O.T.N.GIRI,THATTIL HOUSE, NATTIKA P.O,THRISSUR. 5. TAHSILDAR (RR),THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BEJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.10830/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT 27.6.05. P2 COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 6.12.05. P3 COPY OF ORDER DT 20.2.06. P4 COPY OF ORDER DT 18.5.06. P5 COPY OF ORDER DT 21.10.06. P6 COPY OF APPLICATION OF RENEWAL OF TEMPORARY PERMIT AND REPLACEMENT OF VEHICLE DT 22.1.05. P7 COPY OF RENEWAL APPLICATION DT 4.3.06. P8 COPY OF NOTICE DT 20.3.07 P9 COPY OF NOTICE DT 20.3.07. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 10830 OF 2007 L ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P1, P3, P4, P5 and P8 and seeks a direction to re-assess the tax and initiate proceedings against the 4th respondent for the period in which she was using the temporary permit of the vehicle in question. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.C.Harikumar and learned Government Pleader. 3. The petitioner is a non banking financial institution giving loans and there was a loan cum hypothecation agreement in respect of stage carriage No.KL-8A/6585. It appears that there is a crime filed alleging theft and the petitioner got the vehicle released to it only on 4.12.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out two aspects. He points out that after filing the writ petition the petitioner has paid the entire money. He further points out that a perusal of Ext.P4 would show that the amount of Rs.3,52,005/- is due towards the motor vehicle tax and since the petitioner has remitted Rs.50,000/- vide receipt dated 4.2.2006, WPC.10830/07 : 2 : the balance amount comes to Rs.3,02,005/- and the petitioner is called upon to remit Rs.3,02,005/-. However, he points out that in Ext.P8, which is the demand notice issued under section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act, the amount shown is Rs.3,52,005/-. In other words, it is pointed out that credit has not been given to Rs.50,000/- paid by the petitioner which is admitted in Ext.P4. He further submits that the vehicle was in the custody of the police in connection with a criminal complaint alleging theft and for the said period the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax. In this regard, he relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Satheesh Vs. Joint Regional Transport Officer [2009 (1) KLT 420]. Therein, the Division Bench held as follows. “ If that be so, the seizure of the vehicle on 25.2.2004 were for reasons other than non- payment of tax. Consequently, the claim for exemption from payment of tax as claimed by the appellant would be squarely covered by SRO.No.878/75. Such a claim is not, in any manner, negatived by the dictum laid down in Abdurahiman's case. (2007 (1) KLT 613 (FB) ).” The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount for the said period. In so WPC.10830/07 : 3 : far as the petitioner has a complaint that the petitioner has paid the amount in excess. I feel that this is a matter to be examined by the officer. According to the petitioner, the amount which he should not have been called upon to pay on the ground of the detention is Rs.22,900/-. In such circumstances, writ petition is disposed of as follows. If the petitioner represents before the 3rd respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment detailing the two complaints which I have referred to, the 3rd respondent will take a decision on the same taking note of the judgment of this court in Satheesh Vs. Joint Regional Transport Officer [2009 (1) KLT 420] and also taking note of the discrepancy noticed in Exts.P4 and P8 within one month from the date of receipt of the representation. Any amount found due will be paid over to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of taking a decision in the matter. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE