IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE16H DAY OF JULY201425TH ASHADHA, 1936 WA.No. 983 of 2014 IN WP(C).16429/2014 ------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 16429/2014DATED APPELLANT/APPELLAT/PETITIONER IN WPC: ----------------------------------------------------- NOBLE THOMAS PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KULATHOOR NADUBHAGOM, KOTTANGAL MALLAPPALLY BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY2 THE SUB INSPECTOR, PERUMPETTUY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT3 TAHASIDLAR TALUK OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY.
4. SUDHAKARAN, SOORYAMANGALAM HOUSE, PUTHOOR KARA, PUTHOOR P.O KOTTARAKKARA - 691 506. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SEBASTIAN CHEMPAPILLI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1607-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.
& P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Writ Appeal No.983 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of July, 2014 JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur,CJ Appellant, who was the writ petitioner before learned Single Judge, is before this Court aggrieved by the judgment of learned Singe Judge refusing to quash Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is the recovery proceedings initiated against petitioner for recovery of Motor Vehicle Tax due on TATA407Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-04-K-1168.
2. Petitioner claims that he sold the vehicle to 4th respondent herein in the year 2007, as per agreement between parties exhibited as Ext.P1, therefore, he is not liable to pay any tax and the authorities could recover the tax as per Section 3(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (for short the Act) from the person who is in possession of the vehicle. Learned Single Judge, after referring to Section 3(3) of the Act was of the Writ Appeal No.983 of 2014 2 opinion that, it is open to the authorities to recover tax either from the registered owner or from the person who is in control of the vehicle. He further opined that, if at all any dispute regarding the possession of the vehicle exists between the parties, it has nothing to do with the department in collecting the tax. With these observations learned Judge opined that, it is open to the authorities to recover the tax amount as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us placing reliance on Section 9 of the Act and also a decision in N.P.R Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2002(1)KLT591. Section 9 of the Act reads as under:- "9. Liability to payment of tax by persons succeeding to the ownership, possession or control of motor vehicles.- (1) If the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before payment of the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to affect the liability to pay the said tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle." Writ Appeal No.983 of 2014 3 3. Based on subsection 2 of section 9, in N.P.R Finance Ltd case (supra) opined that, if the vehicle is in possession of the financier, the financier can be saddled with the liability of tax. Reading of Section 9(1) and 9(2) along with the above judgment would only indicate that even person who has lawful possession of the vehicle can be compelled to pay tax on the vehicle. None of these provisions absolve the liability of the registered owner.
4. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, appellant cannot seek protection under Section 9 of the Act or the decision relied upon by him. If at all there are dues on the vehicle to be paid to the financier, it is for the financier to decide how he recovers that money. If any proceedings were to be held against the registered owner in accordance with the procedure or the terms of agreement between the financier and the registered owner, it is also left open to the financier to take appropriate recourse. We are not considering such a situation in this case. We are considering a situation where legally the vehicle is not yet transferred to 4th respondent. Appellant is still the registered owner of the vehicle. Invoking jurisdiction of Section 3(3) of the Act, department had initiated recovery Writ Appeal No.983 of 2014 4 proceedings which is perfectly in consonance with the provisions of law.
5. However, having regard to the financial difficulties explained by the appellant, we are of the opinion, granting installments to pay the above said amount will not prejudice the interest of the State as they would be recovering the tax .
6. The appellant shall pay in four equal monthly installments for the payment of the balance tax dues, starting from 01.08.2014. If the appellant makes any single default, the recovery steps initiated shall revive and continue. This writ appeal is disposed of as above. MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. sj16/07