IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2006 / 25TH SRAVANA 1928 OP.No. 6350 of 2001(E) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHAIJU,N., KUNNUMKALTHARA, PARAYAKAD P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (TR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/ TAXATION OFFICER, CHERTHALA 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), CHERTHALA. 3. FIROSH, S/O. SHAMSUDDIN, AUTHORISED AGENT OF ASHOK FINANCIERS, SOWKARPET, MARADU VILLAGE, NETTOOR DESOM, ERNAKULAM DIST. R1 AND R2 BY G.P. SRI. SURARSHAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 10450 OF 2001 IN OP 6350 OF 2001 DISMISSED 16.8.2006 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SURRENDER LETTER OF THE VEHICLE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 9.1.1999 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.3.1999 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE REGISTRATION OF EXT.P2 LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 31.3.99 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE LETTER/AGREEMENT DATED 26.5.1999 EXECUTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO ONE SAJIMON EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4.1.2001 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RTO ALAPPUZHA WITH COPY TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED NIL RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. -------------------------------------------- O.P.NO. 6350 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2006 JUDGMENT O.P. is filed challenging revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of motor vehicle tax in respect of vehicle bearing registration No. KL-4-7866. Petitioner's case is that vehicle was repossessed by the third respondent, who was the financier. The third respondent later sold the vehicle, and therefore petitioner is not liable to pay tax, is his case. However, Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act authorises recovery from the registered or from the person in possession and control of the vehicle. Wherever the vehicle may be, the same can be attached and sold. Besides, tax can be recovered from the person who was the registered owner for the relevant period. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to verify where vehicle is and if the vehicle is available, seize the same and sell the same in revenue recovery proceedings, but after following the procedure. If vehicle is not available, then recovery can be made from the registered owner for the respective period during which he was the 2 registered owner. If any recovery is made from the petitioner, the same should be reckoned and then only balance will be recovered. If petitioner makes payment of tax, there will be a direction to respondents to waive surcharge and allow petitioner to discharge liability exclusive of surcharge. O.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 3