Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 11TH POUSHA 193 WP(C).No. 8483 of 2011 (I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.M. KOYA MOIDEEN, S/O. MOHAMMED,KUNHAVARAN MARAKKARAKATHU HOUSE, PARAVANA.P.O,TIRUR,MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.P.DEEPAK SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,TIRUR ”
505.
2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CZ-I,THRISSUR ”
001.
3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ”
001.
4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,TIRUR ”
505.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TRIKANDIYUR ”
506. BY G.P. SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (WPC 8483/2011) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THIS MEMO DT.22.10.2008. P2: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT.5.11.08. P3: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND DT.13.11.08. P4:TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.24.11.08. P5: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DT.26.11.2008. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DT.28.2.2009. P7: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DT.7.4.09. P8: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.8.6.2009 IN WPC NO.15691/2009. P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DT.8.6.2010. P10: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.24.12.09 ISSUED BY R4. P11: TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR PREPARED BY R5 ON 9.3.2011. P12: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.30.4.2011. TRUE COPY pms P.A. to Judge A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J --------------------------------------- W.P. (C) NO. 8483 OF 201.---------------------------------------- Dated this the 01st day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext. P6 and P9 orders issued by the Motor Vehicles Department imposing tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976.
2. Ext. P6 is the order passed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner confirming the demand for non-payment of tax from 01.07.2007 to 28.02.2008 in respect of vehicle KL-10/H 2122.It is stated in Ext P6 order that the petitioner had not submitted the necessary G Form within the prescribed time for claiming exemption from payment of tax during the relevant period and therefore the liability to pay tax had arisen. Ext. P9 is the order of the Transport Commissioner confirming Ext. P6 order. The said authority has also come to the conclusion that there was no Form G filed for seeking exemption from payment of tax for the period from 01.07.2007 to 31.03.2008 and therefore the petitioner is under obligation to pay the tax W.P. (C) NO. 8483 OF 201.2 liability.
3. Going by the orders passed in Ext. P6 and Ext. P9, the main reason for imposing such a penalty was non filing of Form G which is a statutory form which has to be filed for seeking exemption from payment of tax. Since there is no material to conclude that the petitioner had filed Form G within the prescribed time, there is no reason to interfere with the orders passed as Ext. P6 and P9.
4. Ext. P10 is a demand made by the Revenue Authorities u/s. 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is not in dispute that the Department is entitled to recover the amount as arrear of Land Revenue. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that instead of proceeding against the concerned motor vehicle in respect of which the amount of tax is due as provided u/s. 13 (2) of the Act the Revenue Authorities has proceeded against another stage carriage KL 1.Q 337.owned by the petitioner. Section 13 (1) and (2) reads as follows:- 13. Amounts recoverable as arrear of land revenue:- (1) Any amount due under this Act and Rules made thereunder shall be recoverable in the same manner as an arrear of public W.P. (C) NO. 8483 OF 201.3 revenue due on land. (2) The motor vehicle in respect of which any amount is due or its accessories may be distrained and sold in pursuance of sub- section (1) whether or not such vehicle or accessories is or are in the possession or control of the person liable to pay the amount.
5. By virtue of an interim order dated 24.03.2011, though the stage carriage KL 1.Q 337.was attached by the Revenue Authorities, this Court had permitted the vehicle to be released on condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 50,000/- before the 4th respondent. It is submitted that the said amount is already deposited and the vehicle is released.
6. Going by the provisions of 13(2) of the Act though it is stated that the Motor Vehicle in respect of which any amount is due may be distrained and sold in pursuance of sub-section (1), irrespective of whether the said vehicle is in the possession of the owner or not, it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities in attaching any property belonging to the defaulter. The demand is made to the petitioner and any of his properties are liable to be attached for recovering the dues to the department. Hence the said argument also is not sustainable. In W.P. (C) NO. 8483 OF 201.4 that view of the matter I do not think that there is any reason to interfere with the action taken by the respondents in this regard.
7. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already remitted Rs. 50,000/- as directed by this Court I permit the petitioner to pay the balance amount as per Ext. P10 demand within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
8. If there is failure to pay the amount within the said period, the respondents shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Until such time, the petitioner shall not transfer or alienate the vehicle KL 1.Q 337.which is already attached by the revenue authorities and later released as per the interim order of this Court. SD/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE DCS