IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 34898 of 2005(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN SMT.LIGEY ANTONY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM . 3. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHAITTA. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 6. GEORGE VARKETY, S/O.C.V.GEORGE, SANKARAMANGALAM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. (ADDL. RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.7.2.2006 IN I.A. 1775/2006.) BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF MAHAZAR DT.11.10.01. P2: COPY OF LETTER DT.11.10.2001. P3: COPY OF ORDER DT.12.6.2003. P4: COPY OF LETTER DT.30.6.2003. P5: .DO. DT.22.1.2004. P6: .DO. DT.25.10.2004. P7: .DO. DT.20.11.2004. P8: .DO. DT. .03.2005. P9: COPY OF RR NOTICE DT.24.11.05. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.34898 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Exts.P7 and P9 proceedings for recovery of arrears of motor vehicle tax in respect of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-03-C-7895. The petitioner is a Government of Kerala undertaking engaged among other things in financing of vehicle purchase. On default by the purchaser, petitioner re-possessed the vehicle and has garaged it at one place. Even though petitioner filed Form G, exemption is declined for the reason that vehicle was shifted from the first place of garage to another. The RTO has demanded tax because vehicle was not seen garaged in the place declared in the Form G. Even though technically the stand of the RTO is correct, I do not think tax can be demanded from the petitioner on this technical ground because being a Government company and as a financial institution, admittedly it is not engaged in any operation of the vehicle. In the circumstances, W.P. is allowed quashing the demand of tax against the petitioner with direction to the RTO to endorse exemption in the RC book of the vehicle for the period covered by Form G furnished by the 2 petitioner. The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment and RC book for compliance by the RTO. This court vide interim order dated 15.12.2005 directed the KFC to file explanation as to why there was delay in the disposal of the vehicle which led to it's deterioration and loss. However, no details are furnished by KFC. It is, therefore, left open for the owner of the vehicle to proceed for recovery against the petitioner- Corporation, if petitioner detained the vehicle without servicing and without effecting sale and if the same led to loss to the registered owner. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms