IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013 30TH SRAVANA, 1935 WA.No. 495 of 2013 () IN WP(C).6966/2013 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) NO.6966/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ------------------------------------------ APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC: -------------------------------- M/S. CONFRATE CARGE SERVICES PVT.LTD., AGED 6 YEARS WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BALAGOPALA B. PAI. BY ADVS.SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC: ------------------------------------------------- 1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER MATTANCHERY, (TAXATION) KOCHI-2.
2. SRI. T.K.PRASAD, S/O.KUNJAPPAN, CHETTIKKAD HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.
3. SRI. C.K.JOSEPH JOHN S/O. KORA, CHETTISSERIL HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR P.O. KOTTAYAM, PIN-686008.
4. M/S. SREERAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. 36/846, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI-682027.
5. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL ZONE-II, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30.
6. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT COMMISSIONARATE, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHAKAD TRIVANDRUM-695014.
7. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOCHI-1. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.03.2013 THE COURT ON 21-08-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & B.Kemal Pasha, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A.No.495 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of August, 2013 Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.Spoke. 2.It is submitted, on our query, that the terms of the interim order issued on 23.3.2013 are being complied with, promptly. We record this submission. 3.Heard. 4.The appellant challenged revenue recovery proceedings initiated on account of default in payment of motor vehicle tax. The plea raised before the learned single Judge was that the WA495/13 -:
2. :- appellant, though the registered owner of the heavy goods vehicle in question, had sold that vehicle to one Sri.Prasad who, in turn, sold it to one Sri.C.K.Joseph. The demand raised on the appellant for the period subsequent to the alleged transfer by him was impeached. Appellant's statutory appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order. His revision was also rejected. It was thus he moved for relief in writ jurisdiction. 5.The learned single Judge did not countenance the plea of the appellant that he having ceased to be in possession of the vehicle, cannot be proceeded against for recovery of tax due. The appellant also contended that the statutory authorities have the obligation either to proceed against the person in possession or against the vehicle itself. 6.The learned single Judge noted that the impugned orders show that the appellant's vendee WA495/13 -:
3. :- Sri.Prasad is no more in possession on account of the sale allegedly made by him to Sri.C.K.Joseph. However, the learned Judge noted that C.K.Joseph denied the so-called transfer of the vehicle to him. The vehicle also remained untraceable. 7.Under the aforesaid circumstances, going by the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the registered owner and the person in possession are equally liable for the tax due. It is not in dispute that the appellant is still the registered owner of the vehicle. In so far as the possession is concerned, the alleged transfer to C.K.Joseph is denied and Prasad has ceased to be in possession. Even going by the facts disclosed in the enquiry, the vehicle in question is not traceable by the Department. 8.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the decision of the learned single Judge that it is not possible for the respondents to proceed WA495/13 -:
4. :- against the alleged transferees of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the registered owner, who is also liable under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. 9.For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal fails. 10.By interim order dated 23.3.2013, the recovery proceedings against the appellant was ordered to stand stayed if the amounts due under the impugned judgment, including accruals, are paid in six equal monthly instalments, on or before the last working day of every month commencing from March, 2013. If there is default in paying any such instalment, the benefit of that interim order was to stand recalled automatically. Preserving the right of the appellant to enjoy the afore-noted interim order dated 23.3.2013 WA495/13 -:
5. :- which we make absolute hereby, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan Judge B.Kemal Pasha Judge Sha/