IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 16074 of 2009(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.P.MICHEAL, S/O. PHILIP, KAYAMMAKKAL HOUSE,CHITTARICKAL VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,HOSDURG. 3. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANHANGAD, KASARAGODE DT. 4. P.M.SHIJU, S/O. MATHEW,PANAMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE,KANNIVAYAL P.O. TALIPARAMBA TALUK. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K.BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 16074 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have resorted to coercive steps under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner towards arrears of motor vehicle tax in respect of the mini lorry bearing No. KL-14A-3080 for the period from 01.04.2001 as borne by Ext. P6 notice and similar subsequent notices; despite the fact that the vehicle in question was sold by the petitioner to one Mr. M.A. Joseph, as borne by Ext. P1 agreement, simultaneously handing over the possession for valuable consideration as specified therein and subject to the terms prescribed thereof. The case of the petitioner is that the 'transferee' named in Ext. P1 subsequently sold the vehicle to somebody else by name P.M. Shaju, who was allegedly W.P.(C) No. 16074 OF 2009 2 operating the vehicle without any valid permit and while so, in connection with unauthorised transportation of some forest goods involving forest offence, the same was seized by the Karnataka Police on 10.03.1998 and the vehicle along with the goods was handed over to the Karnataka Forest Department . 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the demand notice issued by the third respondent the position was duly intimated by the petitioner vide his letter dated 15.12.2004 as referred to in Ext. P2 communication dated 10.02.2005 sent by the third respondent to the Circle Inspector of Police, Arkalgud Police Station, Karnataka State, seeking to confirm the position as to the seizure. This in turn has been replied by the addressee vide his reply dated 21.12.2005 as borne by Ext. P3 confirming the seizure held on 10.03.1998, in connection with the smuggling of Rosewood logs . Thereafter, the third respondent sent Ext.P4 letter dated 21.01.2006 to their counter parts in Karnataka seeking for instructions in respect of subsequent turn of events , particularly as to the tax W.P.(C) No. 16074 OF 2009 3 arrears stated as due. This was followed by Ext.P5 reminder dated 18.10.2006. In the meanwhile, met with the coercive steps as borne by Ext. P6, the petitioner had approached the Civil Court seeking for appropriate reliefs which, however was declined holding that the suit was not maintainable, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 3. The third respondent has filed a statement , asserting that demand of tax is in respect of the period from 01.04.2001 to 31.12.2002 and from 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2004, simultaneously adding that Ext.P6 is only with respect to the period from 01.04.2001 to 31.12.2002 and that different notices are being issued in respect of the entire period from 01.04.2001 to 31.12.2004. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent having admitted the position, conveyed by the petitioner as to the seizure of the vehicle vide letter dated 15.12.2004 as referred to in Ext. P2, the respondents are not W.P.(C) No. 16074 OF 2009 4 entitled to demand any tax in respect of the said vehicle at least for the period after 31.12.2004. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the demand has been confined only to the period upto 31.12.2004 and that the petitioner will have to satisfy the said amount since he continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle, admittedly since no intimation was ever served to the department as to the sale of the vehicle or the seizure, which, however was conveyed only vide his letter dated 15.12.2004 and never before. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, it is hereby declared that the petitioner will be liable to satisfy the tax liability in respect of the vehicle in question for the period from 01.04.2001 to 31.12.2004 and the amount due shall be satisfied by the petitioner by way of three regular monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 10th August, 2009, to be followed by two more similar installments to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months. Subject W.P.(C) No. 16074 OF 2009 5 to the above all coercive steps stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that if any default is committed in clearing the liability as above, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk