IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013 2ND MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 1867 of 2013 () ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- NISHAD K.,S/O.KAMARUDHEEN, 880-ABIDA MANZIL, MAYYANAD VILLAGE, KOTTIYAM,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE TAHASILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM-69”
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MAYYANAD VILLAGE, MAYYANAD.P.O., KOLLAM-PIN-69”
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 013 R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.1867/2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NO.2012/4883/2/300 DATED 17 08/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 7 AND 3.OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. P2 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NO.2012/5623/2/300 DATED 30 10/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 7 AND 3.OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J ......................................... WP(C)No.1867 of 2013 ......................................... Dated 22nd January, 2013 JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased a bus bearing registration not KL-3B 646.on 3.10.2007. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was garaged from November 2007 onwards. It is stated that periodically G-forms were also filed. However, he is now facing recovery proceedings for realising Rs.2,20,500/- and Rs.8,26,875/- due towards motor vehicle tax for the period from 1.10.2007 and 1.4.2011 onwards. It is challenging these dues, the writ petition is filed.
2. The instructions obtained by learned Government Pleader is to the effect that the petitioner has not filed any G-form.
3. Although petitioner claims to have filed G-forms covering the period when the vehicle was garaged, petitioner does not have any evidence to prove that claim. In the absence of such proof and on account of the dispute Wpc 1867/13 2 raised by learned Government Pleader, I am unable to accept the case of the petitioner. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot be exonerated of the liability to pay motor vehicle tax. If that be so, recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be interfered with.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner sought an instalment facility to pay the amount due under Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 notice for recovery of the amount mentioned above. Taking note of the request made, I direct that the petitioner be permitted to pay the amounts due in ten equal monthly instalments. First instalment shall be paid on or before 10.2.2013 and subsequent instalments shall be paid on 10th of every succeeding month. Subject to payment as above, coercive action now initiated against the petitioner will be deferred and in case of default, respondents will be free to recover the amounts. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE lgk