Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 17TH POUSHA 193 WP(C).No. 25121 of 2009 (I) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- P.CHOYIKUTTY POOVATHOOR HOUSE, KAKKODI P.O.,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KOZHIKODE.
2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) KOZHIKODE.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI. P.A. MOHAMMED SHAH - SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25121 of 2009 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REQUEST 28 11/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17 11/2008 ISSUED BY R2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. acd ANTONY DOMINIC,J -------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25121 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration not KRE 7820.According to the petitioner, the vehicle was sold as scrap and was dismantled on 28.11.2006. It is also stated that tax was paid up to 31.12.2006 and he surrendered the RC of the vehicle as per Ext.P2. It is stated that in spite of it, demanding tax for the period from 01.01.2007 to 30.06.2008, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated by Ext.P3. It is in these circumstances, he has filed this writ petition.
2. According to the petitioner, he having scrapped the vehicle and surrendered the RC for cancellation as per Ext.P2, he has no liability to pay tax for the period in question.
3. However, in the counter affidavit filed, respondents state that an enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer and that it was reported that he did not obtain any material W.P.(C).No.25121 of 2009 :
2. : evidence regarding the dismantling and scrapping of the vehicle. It is also stated that since tax was due for the period subsequent to 01.01.2007, demand notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.06.2008. It is stated that despite the service of notice, the petitioner did not respond to the same and that therefore, recovery steps were initiated in July, 2008.
4. Evidently, therefore, recovery proceedings were initiated on account of the absence of materials to substantiate the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was dismantled on 28.11.2006. Such a conclusion was arrived at by the respondents on account of the failure of the petitioner to respond to the demand notice dated 21.06.2008. This, according to the petitioner was not willful. Therefore, in the circumstances, I feel that another opportunity should be given to the petitioner so that, if possible, he can prove the fact of scrapping of the vehicle on 28.11.2006. W.P.(C).No.25121 of 2009 :
3. :
5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that within three weeks from today, the petitioner will produce before the first respondent evidence of dismantling the vehicle on 28.11.2006. If he produces evidence as above, the first respondent will conduct necessary enquiry into the allegation of the petitioner with notice to him and on that basis, pass fresh orders.
6. In order to enable the first respondent to conduct the enquiry as above, I direct that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, be kept in abeyance in the meanwhile. It is clarified that if the petitioner does not produce evidence as above or if the final order to be passed is against the petitioner, it will be open to the respondents to continue the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated by Ext.P3 notice. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln