Kerala High Court
C.S. Varkey vs The Regional Transport Officer on 21 November, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
2024:KER:87374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 16270 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
C.S. VARKEY,AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. SCARIA, CHERIYANITHATTATHIL, CHELAKOMBU P.O.,
KARUKANCHAL, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANILAL
S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
TAXATION OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
KOTAYAM-686001
2 THE TAHASILDAR,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK,
CHANAGNANCHERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE,
CHANGANCHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001
4 JOHN K.J.,KANJIRATHUMMOOTTIL HOUSE,
PARATHODU, PALAMPRA P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY,
KOTTAYAM-686001
BY ADVS.
SMT. THUSHARA JAMES, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. RAVEENDRAN K.T. -R4
P.DEEPAK (SR.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:87374
WP(C) NO. 16270 OF 2019 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was the holder of a regular stage carriage
permit on the route Kurichy - Kattappana via Mundakayam,
Elappara etc. The permit was issued in respect of stage carriage
bearing registration No. KEK-6397. The petitioner entered into
a lease agreement with the 4 th respondent for taking on lease
vehicle bearing registration No. KL-06-9273 for operating on the
strength of the permit by replacing the vehicle. According to the
petitioner, the liability of paying the motor vehicle tax was with
the 4th respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner could not
operate the vehicle on the strength of the permit referred to
above as the vehicle was seized on 16.05.2004 by the Assistant
Motor Vehicle Inspector for non-payment of tax. It is the case of
the petitioner that, on seizure, the petitioner lost possession and
control of the vehicle and thereafter the vehicle was released to
the registered owner (namely the 4 th respondent), on the basis of
certain orders issued by the Government granting instalment
facility to pay the motor vehicle tax. On the above facts, it is the
case of the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable for payment
of any motor vehicle tax in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KL-
06-9273. It is also pointed out that the vehicle itself was
2024:KER:87374
dismantled in the year 2005 as can be seen from Ext.P9. It is
submitted that the proceedings now initiated for recovery of
motor vehicle tax from the petitioner for the period from
01.07.2004 to 31.03.2011, cannot be sustained in law. It is
submitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to
substantiate his case before the Regional Transport Officer as
the tax liability was imposed on the petitioner as possessor of the
vehicle and no adjudication was held before determining the
liability of the petitioner.
2. Learned Senior Government Pleader and the
learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit
that, in terms of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicle
Taxation Act, the person in possession of the vehicle is also liable
for payment of motor vehicle tax. It is submitted that the
petitioner was also issued with Ext.P8 notice and the petitioner
failed to respond to the same and therefore, the proceedings
were completed by the taxation officer, determining that the
petitioner was liable to pay tax in respect of the vehicle in
question. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner
that the proceedings were held in violation of the principles of
natural justice cannot be sustained in law. Learned Senior
2024:KER:87374
Government Pleader refers to the counter affidavit filed in this
writ petition and further submits that going by the instructions
received by her, there is no record to suggest that the vehicle
was seized by the Motor Vehicles Department or the Police
Department as is now contended by the petitioner.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the
official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th
respondent, I am of the view that, in the facts and circumstances
of this case, it will be appropriate that the 1 st respondent be
directed to take a decision on the liability of the petitioner for
motor vehicle tax in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.
KL-06-9273 having regard to any materials that may be produced
by the petitioner. I am inclined to so direct on account of the
fact that, according to the petitioner, immediately after taking
possession of the vehicle in terms of the lease agreement
executed with the 4th respondent (registered owner of the
vehicle) the vehicle was seized by the Assistant Motor Vehicle
Inspector for non-payment of tax. While there appears to be
considerable dispute regarding the said fact, this is an aspect
that has to be considered by the 1 st respondent before fixing any
2024:KER:87374
liability on the petitioner to pay motor vehicle tax. This is
because, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act,
1976 while a person in possession is liable for motor vehicle tax ,
such possession has to be established for the purposes of
imposing a liability on the petitioner.
Therefore, this writ petition will stand allowed to the
extent of setting aside Exts.P8 demand notice and Ext.P10
proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act against
the petitioner and directing that the question regarding the
liability of the petitioner to pay motor vehicle tax in respect of
the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-06-9273 be determined by
the 1st respondent, after affording an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and to the 4th respondent. It will be open to the
petitioner to produce any materials that he may wish to rely
upon before the 1st respondent to establish that he is not liable to
pay motor vehicle tax in respect of the vehicle in question. The
matter shall be finalized by the 1st respondent, as directed above,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment. I make it clear that any
observation in this judgment is only for the purposes of
considering the contentions taken by the parties and shall not
2024:KER:87374
be treated as any finding by this Court at any point and it will be
open to the 1st respondent to determine the liability to pay motor
vehicle tax in accordance with the law and untrammelled by any
observation contained in this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ats/ajt
2024:KER:87374
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16270/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED
30.3.2004 ENTERED INTO PETITIONER AND THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
FILED OF THE 1ST RESPODNENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 09/10/2009 BY
ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHILCE INSPECTOR
KANJIRAPPALLY TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXT.P3 REPORT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29/12/2011 ISSUED
BY THE 1STR RESPONDENT TO THE JOINT T.T.O.
KANJIRAPPALLY
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND ON
12/3/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/3/2012 BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE JOINT REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANIRAPPALLY
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED
12/3/2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SEC.7
DATED 19/3/2019
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF EXT P10
DEMAND NOTICE
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 26/3/2019
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
