IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32667 of 2005(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.B. MOIDEENKUTTY, PEEDIAKKAL VALAPPIL HOUSE, VELLARAKKADU, THALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERRY,THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT. 2. THE RGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, THALAPPILLY, WADAKKANCHERRY. 4. KABEER, SON OF ABDULLAKUTTY, PADINJAKKARA, PALLIKKULAM DESOM,KARIKKATTU VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DIST. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGD. NOTICE ISSUED BY THE HIRE PURCHASE COMPANY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CI, KUNNAMKULAM DATED 16.6.2005 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO.32667 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The demand of motor vehicle tax under challenge is for the period of two months, that is from 1.4.2005 to 31.5.2005. Even though petitioner has a case that vehicle was sold in 2004, respondents have submitted that in June, 2005 the petitioner furnished Form G for claiming motor vehicle tax exemption with effect from 1.6.2005. In fact exemption was also granted in terms of the petitioner's request. In the circumstances, petitioner cannot plead about sale of vehicle before that. If the petitioner has sold the vehicle, it is for the petitioner to recover tax amount from the purchaser. Since registered owner is liable, petitioner is liable for payment of tax under Section3 of the Motor vehicle Taxation Act. Since petitioner continued to be a registered owner during April and May, 2005 recovery is permissible against the petitioner. In fact this Court had issued an interim order dated 24.11.2005 for seizure of the vehicle for the purpose of recovery. If recovery is not effected through seizure of vehicle, and sale of same 2 pursuant to interim order dated 24.11.2005, then recovery can be made from the petitioner, as the petitioner was the registered owner during the relevant period. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 3