IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 1095 of 2007(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ C. SEBASTIAN, S/O. CHARLES, THALLACHIRA, KUNNUMPURATH VEEDU, MEMMALA P.O., VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.R4. THE MANAGER, VIJAY HEMANT FINANCE AND ESTATES LTD., PRAKASH PRESIDIUM, 'B' WING V FLOOR, 110, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, CHENNAI (ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.613/07 DATED 9.10.2009) ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE FOR ADDL.R4 SMT.LINDA GEORGE FOR ADDL.R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIEEP MOHAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1095/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 4.5.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DTD., 29.5.2006 SUBMITTED BY AMVI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF the ORDER DATE 31.5.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.10.2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXTS. OF R4 EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.12.97 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VITHURA, TRIVANDRUM BY REGISTERED POST. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.12.97 ISSUED BY THE ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1095 OF 2007 (E) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 2. Petitioner was the registered owner of a Tempo Traveller bearing Regn.No.KL-07 C 1497, in respect of which hire purchase was availed of from the additional 4th respondent financier. Till 1/7/96, admittedly tax was paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, default was committed not only in the payment of tax, but also the dues to the financier. Finally, the vehicle was seized by the financier on 17/12/97. Subsequently, based on an understanding between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the vehicle was dismantled on 2/2/99. It is also seen from Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent that the registration certificate was also cancelled with effect from that date. 3. However, in the meanwhile, revenue recovery steps were also initiated for recovery of the motor vehicle tax from 1/7/96 to 31/12/2000. It was in pursuance to the said requisition that Ext.P4 notice was issued under the Revenue Recovery Act for WPC 1095/07 :2 : realising Rs.1,93,896/-, which is under challenge int his writ petition. 4. Counter affidavit shows that subsequently the amount demanded towards motor vehicle tax was reduced and was refixed for the period 1/7/96 to 2/2/99 and the amount that is sought to be recovered is Rs.1,14,696/- as against Rs.1,93,896/- mentioned in Ext.P4. 5 The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle was seized on 17/12/97 and that since then the vehicle was in the custody of the financier. It is contended therefore that the recovery proceedings initiated against him is illegal. 6. Exemption from the payment of motor vehicle tax can be claimed only if the conditions specified in Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 have been complied with. It has been so held by a Full Bench of this Court in Regional Transport Officer v. Abdurahiman (2007(1) KLT 613). In this case, the vehicle was seized on 17/12/97 and therefore admittedly petitioner has possession for the defaulted period, 1/7/96 to 17/12/97. This liability of the petitioner is an undisputed one. Even in respect of the said period and the WPC 1095/07 :3 : remaining period till 2/2/99, petitioner has no case of having complied with the requirements of filing G Form as mandated in Section 5 of the Act. If that requirement has not been complied with, there arise no question of exemption from the payment of motor vehicles tax. If that be so, the recovery of motor vehicle tax for the period 1/7/96 to 2/2/99 cannot be faulted. I am not persuaded to interfere. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. 7. Counsel for the petitioner prays for an instalment facility to discharge the liability. 8. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. It is directed that the petitioner will be permitted to pay the amount due in three instalments, the first of which shall be paid on or before 20th of October 2009 and the subsequent instalments on or before 20th of November and December, 2009. It is made clear that if payment is made as above, recovery proceedings will not be initiated and if default is committed, respondents will be free to initiate recovery proceedings. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp