IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 31013 of 2005(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SURESH KUMAR, S/O. SUSEELAMMA, KUNNATHULLY HOUSE, ARTHATTU P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. 4. E.G. SIDHARTHAN @ SIDHARTHAN A.G, S/O. EDATHARA GOVINDAN, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 to R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI P.A.SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.31013/2005 ORDER ON I.A.NO.16689/2005 IN W.P.(C).NO.31013/2005 ------- Dismissed 28/5/2005 Sd/- P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 6/11/2001. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.D3-11041/2005 DATED 16/4/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.D3-11041/05/MVT. DATED 16/4/2005 IN FORM 10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/4/2005 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/4/2005 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6/4/2004. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C3/KL8/A 8577/TAX DATED 22/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C3/KL8/A8577/TAX DATED 20/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P.R.RAMAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.31013 OF 2005 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY,2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner admittedly is the registered owner of a motor vehicle, (Ashok Leyland Bus) bearing Registration No.KL-8A 8577. According to him, he sold the vehicle to the 4th respondent herein and Ext.P1 agreement is produced in support thereof. According to him, after 6/11/2001 the date on which possession was transferred to the 4th respondent, there can be no tax liability fastened on him in respect of the vehicle in question. On that premise he challeges Exts.P2, P3, P7 and P8 which are proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of an amount of Rs. 59,865/- towards the tax due in respect of the vehicle from 1/7/2003 onwards. Ext.P8 is a show cause notice under date 20/10/2005 to show cause as why registration of the vehicle in question should not be suspended under section 53(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, since the vehicle was found to be in a dilapidated condition and the right to submit an explanation was also offered. If the petitioner's contention that he has already transferred the vehicle in favour of the 4th respondent and ceased to have any control over the vehicle, I find no reason why he should challenge Ext.P8. At any rate, -2- W.P.(C).No.31013/2005 Ext.P8 is only a show cause notice and the petitioner has no case that any explanation was offered thereto. In the circumstances, the challenge against Ext.P8 at the instance of the petitioner cannot be entertained. 2. As regards the tax liability is concerned, Section 9 of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976 provides that if the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before payment of tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax. The provision contained in Sub Section (1) shall not be deemed to affect the liability to pay the said tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle. Coming to Section 3 which is the charging section it provides for levy of tax on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State at the rate specified for such vehicle in the Schedule. As per sub Section 3(3) of the Act, the registered owner of, or any person having any possession or control of a motor vehicle shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to use or kept such vehicle for use in the State, except during any period for which no tax is payable on such -3- W.P.(C).No.31013/2005 motor vehicle under sub section 1 of Section 5. Admittedly this is not a vehicle to which any exemption was granted under Section 5. Therefore, the tax in respect of the vehicle for the period in question is liable to be paid. The only question is who is liable to pay tax. On a combined reading of Section 3(3) read with Section 9 of the Act would clearly show that the registered owner cannot absolve himself from the liability to pay tax so long as the registration continues to be in his name. The fact that he has transferred the possession of the vehicle is a matter to be proved and at any rate, it is not an answer as against the statutory liability. If there is an agreement of transfer between the owner and the transferee and the transferee is not in possession and by virtue of contract between the parties, the transferee himself has taken over the liability, such contractual liability can certainly be enforced by the owner as against the transferee, and whatever amount he has paid in respect of the vehicle could be recovered, since such payment made by him can only be on behalf of the transferee. Therefore, it is not possible to conceive an argument that because of Ext.P1 agreement between the parties, the petitioner, who is still the registered owner of the vehicle, has ceased to have the liability to pay tax. But then the records would show that the vehicle has been seized by the Police and the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. -4- W.P.(C).No.31013/2005 They have no case that the vehicle was seized from the petitioner. It is also not known whether any order was passed pursuant to Ext.P8. The 4th respondent though accepted the notice, has not chosen to enter appearance and file any counter. If as a matter of fact Ext.P1 is disputed, the only person who can dispute the same, is the 4th respondent. Therefore, the fact that there was a transfer of possession of the vehicle as averred in the writ petition, is not denied by the 4th respondent by filing any counter. 3. In such circumstances and in view of the fact that the vehicle is already seized by the Police, there will be a direction that they may proceed to sell the vehicle in the same condition and whatever amount realised therefrom be adjusted towards the tax liability and it is open to them to recover the balance amount from the petitioner. In case the petitioner happens to be made liable for any amount towards tax liability, it will be open to him to recover the same from the 4th respondent. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv.