Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the revenue recovery steps initiated against him by the respondents for recovery of motor vehicle tax for the period from 01.01.2002 to 30.06.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was the registered owner of the vehicle, he sold the vehicle to the 6th respondent in 2000 and had also intimated the respondent registering authority of the fact, although not in the manner prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. It is the contention of the petitioner that, insofar as he was not in ownership, control or possession of the vehicle after 2000, the demand of Motor Vehicle Tax for the subsequent period could not be fastened on him. It is under these circumstances that he impugns Ext.P3 and P5 notices in the writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri.George Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the W.P.(C).No.6654 of 2007 2 view that insofar as the petitioner has not complied with the statutory procedure for effecting a change in the ownership of the vehicle with the registering authority, or taken steps to file the necessary intimation in the statutory form with the registering authority, he cannot now take a stand that he is not the registered owner of the vehicle for the purposes of payment of tax. The provisions of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act clearly state that the recovery of tax can be from the registered owner of the vehicle and that a sale effected by the said person will not automatically absolve him from his liability to pay tax in accordance with the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. In this view of the matter, I see no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns W.P.(C).No.6654 of 2007 3