Kathan Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Trichy and Others

Kathan vs The Regional Transport Officer, Trichy and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Apr 20, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1191272

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/1191272
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: B. Rajendran
Decided On: Apr 20, 2016
Case Number: W.P(MD)No. 5134 of 2014 & MP(MD)No. 1 of 2014
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kathan

Respondent

The Regional Transport Officer, Trichy and Others

Excerpt

.....the title by producing the rc book and all other necessary documents as the offence said to have been committed is the compoundable offence. it is submitted that there is no power vested with authority to retain the vehicle for long time unnecessarily. hence, the petitioner is before this court contending that he is ready to settle the amount due to the second respondent. 3. the learned additional government pleader appearing for the first respondent submits that actually the vehicle being retained by the authority is owned by another person, namely c.raja and there is also an endorsement of hypothecation with a finance company. therefore, the authority concerned asked the petitioner to explain in respect of the query raised by them. instead of clarifying the actual position he has simply approached this court, due to which the vehicle could not released. 4. it is pertinent to state here that to find out the ownership of the vehicle, the authority concerned is required to verify the original document, namely rc book and they can also scrutinize the objections made by the finance company. instead of doing do, they are seeking clarification from the petitioner to prove the ownership by unnecessarily retaining the vehicle. be that as it may, since the petitioner claims the right of ownership , he is directed to appear before the concerned authority and establish his ownership by adducing sufficient documents in support thereof. on receipt of the same, it is for the authorities to verify the r.c. book and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after giving notice to all the parties concerned and the respondents 2 and 3. 5. with the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. no costs. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to forthwith release the vehicle JCB with registration No. TN-55-P-2719 and to pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.)

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to forthwith release the vehicle JCB with registration No. TN-55-P-2719.

2. The only grievance is that the petitioner is ready to comply with all the requirements as contemplated in the notice. He is prepared to establish the title by producing the RC Book and all other necessary documents as the offence said to have been committed is the compoundable offence. It is submitted that there is no power vested with authority to retain the vehicle for long time unnecessarily. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court contending that he is ready to settle the amount due to the second respondent.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submits that actually the vehicle being retained by the authority is owned by another person, namely C.Raja and there is also an endorsement of hypothecation with a finance company. Therefore, the authority concerned asked the petitioner to explain in respect of the query raised by them. Instead of clarifying the actual position he has simply approached this Court, due to which the vehicle could not released.

4. It is pertinent to state here that to find out the ownership of the vehicle, the authority concerned is required to verify the original document, namely RC Book and they can also scrutinize the objections made by the finance company. Instead of doing do, they are seeking clarification from the petitioner to prove the ownership by unnecessarily retaining the vehicle. Be that as it may, since the petitioner claims the right of ownership , he is directed to appear before the concerned authority and establish his ownership by adducing sufficient documents in support thereof. On receipt of the same, it is for the authorities to verify the R.C. Book and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after giving notice to all the parties concerned and the respondents 2 and 3.

5. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Kathan vs The Regional Transport Officer, Trichy and Others Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge B. Rajendran