The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11/A 6207. The vehicle was purchased by availing finance from the 4th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that on 23.04.2002, the vehicle was seized by the 4th respondent in connection with a default committed by the petitioner in repayment of the loan amount. Thereafter, there was a demand of motor vehicle tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act from the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2002 to 31.12.2005. It would appear that, on being faced with the demand, the petitioner approached this Court through a writ petition and, as per the judgment of this Court in that writ petition, the 3rd respondent was directed to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders in respect of the demand issued to the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the order dated 19.02.2010 that was passed by the 3rd respondent pursuant to the direction of this Court. In Ext.P2, the demand against the petitioner is seen confirmed on the ground that the 4th respondent financier could not be traced. The demand was, therefore, fastened on the petitioner in his capacity as the registered owner of the vehicle. Ext.P2 order is impugned in the writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that for the period subsequent to 23.04.2002, on which date, according to the petitioner, the vehicle was seized by the financier and continued in the latter's possession and control, there was no procedure followed for the purposes of claiming exemption from payment of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. No doubt, the petitioner would contend that following the said procedure under Section 5 of the Act was not possible in the instant case since it was incumbent upon the petitioner to show the place of garage of the vehicle which in this case he could not do. I am not impressed with the said contention on behalf of the petitioner. Even if the statutory procedure under Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act could not have been followed by the petitioner, it was always open to him to resort to the procedure under Section 6 of the Act for the purposes of claiming a refund of the tax that was paid by him. Under the scheme of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, non payment of tax due under the Act can only be through recourse to Section 5 or Section 6 of the Act. Section 5 contemplates an exemption subject to compliance with certain procedural formalities. Section 6, on the other hand, contemplates a payment of tax and then a refund of the same on the claimant establishing that the vehicle was not used or kept for use during the whole of the period in respect of which the refund is claimed. Other than the said two provisions, which can go to reduce the tax liability of an assessee under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, there is no other provision which would exempt the assesee from his liability to pay tax in accordance with the Act. Under these circumstances, on finding that the petitioner has not taken recourse to either Section 5 or Section 6 of the Act, and in view of the fact that the petitioner was admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle during the period in question, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P2 order passed by the 3rd respondent confirming the demand of motor vehicle tax on the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2002 to 31.12.2005. Resultantly, the writ petition, in its challenge against Ext.P2 order, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has documents to show that the vehicle was not kept for use within the State during the period from 01.07.2002 to 31.12.2005 since the vehicle was seized by the financier and, therefore, not capable of being used. Taking note of the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, I make it clear that, if after payment of the tax demanded under Ext.P2 order, the petitioner makes an application before the Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode for a refund in terms of Section 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, the same shall be considered by the said authority in accordance with the Act and Rules and orders passed thereon, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns