Sheeja Thomas Vs. Rto, Kottayam and ors

Sheeja Thomas vs Rto, Kottayam and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 13, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1165913

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1165913
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Decided On: Oct 13, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sheeja Thomas

Respondent

Rto, Kottayam and ors

Excerpt

.....that it was pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the assistant motor vehicle inspector that it was found that the w.p.(c).no.7453 of 2010 -2- vehicle was not garaged in the place that was indicated in form 'g'. under those circumstances, the exemption claimed by the petitioner could not be granted and consequently the petitioner had to be proceeded against for recovery of the tax amount.3. i have heard sri.g.prabhakaran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar,i find that this is a case where the petitioner could not sustain his claim for exemption on account of the fact that the vehicle, that he had declared to be garaged in a particular premises while submitting the form 'g', was found not to be in those premises by the assistant motor vehicle inspector on inspection. the petitioner thus not having complied with the statutory requirements for claiming exemption from motor vehicle tax for the period in question, could not be entitled for the exemption. in such circumstances, i do not see any reason to interfere with exts.p9 and p10 notices that are impugned in the writ petition. the challenge in the writ petition against the notices fails and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. the petitioner shall pay the amounts covered by exts.p9 and p10 w.p.(c).no.7453 of 2010 -3- revenue recovery notices in three equal monthly instalments commencing from 1st november, 2014. a.k.jayasankaran nambiar judge mns w.p.(c).no.7453 of 2010 -4-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE13H DAY OF OCTOBER201421ST ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No. 7453 of 2010 (F) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- SHEEJA THOMAS,THAKADIYELPARAMBIL CHANANIKAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER/ THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

3. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOTTAYAM.

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANACHIKKAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LIJU V.STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1310-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7453 of 2010 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RTO EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE 'G' FORM INTIMATING THE NON USE OF THE VEHICLE KL-5/B6109EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED72.2007 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED266.2007 EXT.P5:TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED238.2007 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED3010.2008 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED1811.2009. EXT.P8:TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT DATED3105.2010 EXT.P9:TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE WITH ITS NUMBER TALUK (C5) FILE NO.2012/3706/5/700 DATED42.2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR, KOTTAYAM) EXT.P10:TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT OF LAND WITHI ITS NUMBER TALUK (C5) FILE NO.2012/3706/5/700 DATED42.2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR, KOTTAYAM) RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTING OFFICER DATED1707.2004 EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTING OFFICER DATED0212.2004 EXT.R1(c):TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT WITH REQUEST FOR TAX EXEMPTION EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION TO THE AUTHORITY DATED2201.2007 //TRUE COPY// P ATO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

............................................................. W.P.(C).No.7453 of 2010 ............................................................. Dated this the 13th day of October, 2014

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was the owner of stage carriage KL5B6109 He had submitted Form 'G' for the period from 01.07.2004 to 30.12.2004 for claiming exemption from motor vehicle tax that was due in terms of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. It would appear that when, pursuant to receipt of Form 'G' from the petitioner, inspections were carried out on 17.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, the vehicle was not found in the place were it was stated to be garaged in the Form 'G' submitted by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the authorities rejected the claim for exemption and proceeded against the petitioner for the arrears of motor vehicle tax for the aforementioned period. Exts.P9 and P10 are the revenue recovery notices that were issued to the petitioner in connection with the said recovery. These notices are impugned in the writ petition.

2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that it was pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector that it was found that the W.P.(C).No.7453 of 2010 -2- vehicle was not garaged in the place that was indicated in Form 'G'. Under those circumstances, the exemption claimed by the petitioner could not be granted and consequently the petitioner had to be proceeded against for recovery of the tax amount.

3. I have heard Sri.G.Prabhakaran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar,I find that this is a case where the petitioner could not sustain his claim for exemption on account of the fact that the vehicle, that he had declared to be garaged in a particular premises while submitting the Form 'G', was found not to be in those premises by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector on inspection. The petitioner thus not having complied with the statutory requirements for claiming exemption from motor vehicle tax for the period in question, could not be entitled for the exemption. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with Exts.P9 and P10 notices that are impugned in the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition against the notices fails and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall pay the amounts covered by Exts.P9 and P10 W.P.(C).No.7453 of 2010 -3- revenue recovery notices in three equal monthly instalments commencing from 1st November, 2014. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns W.P.(C).No.7453 of 2010 -4-

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Sheeja Thomas vs Rto, Kottayam and ors Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar