IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1900 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SINDHU ABRAHAM, VANIAPURAKAL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. M/S.INDIA CEMENTS & CAPITALS LIMITED, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV.DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.1900 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery proceedings being pursued by the respondents in respect of the steps for realisation of the tax liability pertained to a contract carriage bearing registration No.KL5/P-9703 which was a subject matter of hire purchase agreement with the second respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was stuck with a notice demanding a sum of Rs.3,30,280/- plus additional tax as the liability. It is contended that Ext.P8 memo issued in this regard is per se wrong and illegal being contrary to the facts and law, which is under challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P.(C) No.1900 of 2010 - 2 - the first respondent has filed a statement stating that the amount shown in Ext.P8 is only a mistake and that the actual liability is only to an extent of Rs.32360/- plus additional tax, that too in respect of the period from 1.1.2007 to 28.2.2007 and also in respect of the month of May, 2007. It is further brought to the notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle was forcibly seized by the second respondent who is the financier on 7.5.2007 and that the petitioner cannot be mulcted with liability to pay any tax in respect of the period after the said date, however conceding that the petitioner is ready and willing to satisfy the liability in respect of the period till that date. 4. The learned counsel who has entered appearance on behalf of the second respondent submits that the said respondent undertakes to satisfy the liability from 7.5.2007, subject to the claim for exemption by virtue of the G Form submitted for subsequent period for which no further steps have W.P.(C) No.1900 of 2010 - 3 - been taken by the concerned authority. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that it is not necessary to keep this matter pending before this Court and hence the same can be disposed of in view of the undisputed extent of facts and figures as mentioned above. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to deposit the entire liability in respect of the period from 1.1.2007 till the month of May, 2007. The first respondent shall issue a revised notice to the petitioner showing the above liability upon which the petitioner shall clear the same within a further period of two weeks thereafter. With regard to the liability of the vehicle from May, 2007, proper notice shall be issued to the second respondent, subject to the claim for exemption pursuant to the G Form stated as filed. On serving the notice as above, the said liability shall be cleared by the second respondent, within a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such W.P.(C) No.1900 of 2010 - 4 - communication. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns