Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY,THE24H DAY OF SEPTEMBER20142ND ASWINA, 1936 W.P.(C).No.22064 of 2009 (C) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):- -------------------------- MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAPANICKER, AGED54YEARS, RESIDING AT BABY SADANAM HOUSE, CHERTHALA SOUTH P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S):- ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHERTHALA.
3. THE DEPUTY TAHISILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA, P.O.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA SOUTH P.O.
5. K.V.RAJU S/O. VARGHESE, KOZHIPATTU HOUSE, THURUTHESSERY KARA, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DIST. R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.RAMAPRASAD UNNI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2409-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- W.P.(C).NO.22064 OF2009C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- -------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED1201.2007 BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.5. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED221.2008 ISSUED BY R2 TO PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED112.08 TO5H RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DT.11.2.08 IN RESPECT OF EXT.P3. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED LETTER SENT TO2D RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER DT.11.2.08. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED112.08. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED2612.08 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PETITIONER. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION7DATED1206.2009 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION33DATED1206.2009 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED117.2009 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO3D RESPONDENT. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED117.2009 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO4H RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- ---------------------------------------- NIL. Vku/- ( true copy ) K. Vinod Chandran, J ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22064 of 2009-C --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2014 JUDGMENT
The petitioner admittedly was the registered owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-01/D-3121. The petitioner claims that he sold the vehicle to the 5th respondent, in October, 2007, the agreement of which is exhibited as Ext.P1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Exhibits P9 and P10 notices for the motor vehicle tax due on the said vehicle for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.12.2008.
2. It is to be noticed that, after sale of a motor vehicle, for effecting transfer of ownership, the transferor shall intimate the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is made, that factum of transfer in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, as per Section 50(1)(a)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Admittedly no such intimation has been given to the Registering Authority. The petitioner relies on an agreement, which, according to him, evidences the factum of transfer, to the 5th respondent. WP(C).No.22064 of 2009 - 2 - 3. Transfer of a vehicle and handing over of valid possession by way of an agreement is an accepted practise, which is also legally permissible. Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 provides for levy of tax; and sub-section (3) provides that the registered owner or any person having possession or control over a motor vehicle shall be deemed to use or has kept such vehicle for use in the State. Hence, the official respondents 2 to 4 are perfectly entitled to proceed against the registered owner as also the person who is in possession or control over the vehicle. If any dispute as to the possession or control of a vehicle is in existence between the parties, the same would have to be necessarily adjudicated before the appropriate civil forum. But that would not in any way affect the right of the Department to proceed against either of the aforesaid persons for satisfaction of tax liability.
4. It is the option of the authorities to proceed to seize the vehicle and sell for recovery of tax dues. That will also not preclude the authority from enquiring into who is in control of the vehicle and in proceeding against such person. It is also open to the authorities to proceed either against the registered owner or WP(C).No.22064 of 2009 - 3 - against the person in control of the vehicle, or even together since the liability to pay tax, under Section 3(3) is; joint and several. Hence, the proceedings now taken against the petitioner, the registered owner of the vehicle, cannot be faulted.
5. If the petitioner wants to deposit the amounts in instalments, the petitioner shall approach the authority within a period of one month and the authority shall grant nine equal monthly instalments. The payment, if any, made by the petitioner, as aforesaid, will not stand against the right of the petitioner to proceed against the 5th respondent; before the appropriate forum. It is made clear that the Taxation authorities shall be entitled to proceed against the petitioner, the 5th respondent, or for sale of the vehicle itself, for recovery of tax, the option for which is within the exclusive domain of the authority. The writ petition stands dismissed with the above observation. Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- ( true copy )