The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 demand notice and Ext.P5 revenue recovery notice issued to him for recovery of motor vehicle tax dues in respect of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KLF 9277, for the period from 1.1.1998 to 30.9.2002. It is the case of the petitioner that while he had purchased the vehicle in 1996, pursuant to a hire purchase agreement entered into with the 5th respondent, the vehicle was repossessed by the 5th respondent on 25.12.1997. The 5th respondent thereafter garaged the vehicle in his premises. The petitioner therefore intimated this fact to the 4th respondent by Ext.P1 letter dated 31.7.1998. He also filed the necessary certificate in Form G to show the intended non-use of the vehicle for the period from 1.1.1998 to 31.3.2000. It is his case that notwithstanding these steps taken by him, the inspection was conducted by the 4th respondent only on 2.8.1999, and on that day, the 4th respondent found that the vehicle was not available in the premises that was indicated in the Form G submitted by the petitioner. As a consequence of this, by Ext.P3 demand notice, the 4th respondent found that the petitioner was not entitled for the benefit of exemption under Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976, and, accordingly, a demand of motor vehicle tax for the period from 1.1.1998 to 30.9.2002 was raised on the petitioner. It was thereafter that Ext.P5 revenue recovery notice was also served on the petitioner for recovery of the dues mentioned in Ext.P3. Exts.P3 and P5 are impugned in the writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle, and amounts of motor vehicle tax having been found due in respect of vehicle No.KLF 9277 for the period from 1.1.1998 to 31.3.2000, the respondents proceeded against the petitioner for recovery of the tax amounts in terms of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
3. I have heard Sri.John Joseph, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt.Lilly.K.T., learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across of the Bar, I am of the view that in the instant case, the claim of the petitioner for exemption was considered by the 4th respondent in the light of the statutory Form G submitted by the petitioner as also the inspection report drawn up on 2.8.1999 when the 4th respondent visited the premises indicated in the Form G submitted by the petitioner. On a consideration of the exemption application, and on noticing that the vehicle in question was not housed in the premises indicated by the petitioner, the claim for exemption by the petitioner was rejected. It was thereafter that the demand was made for the motor vehicle tax dues against the petitioner for the period aforementioned. No doubt, the petitioner has a case that the vehicle in question was repossessed by the 5th respondent on 25.12.1997, and, therefore, after that date, he could not be seen as the owner or the person having possession and control over the vehicle for the purposes of levy of tax in terms of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. In this connection, I must refer to Section 9(2) of the above Act, which clearly indicates that the mere transfer of the vehicle would not effect the liability to tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or ceased to be in possession or control of the vehicle. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to establish before the registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that he was no longer a person who either owned, controlled or possessed the vehicle for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act. From the documents produced along with the writ petition, I am unable to find such an attempt on the part of the petitioner. In that view of the matter and going by the express provisions of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the stand of the respondents in Exts.P3 and P5 notices cannot be seen as arbitrary or illegal. Resultantly, the reliefs prayed in the writ petition cannot be granted, and I accordingly dismiss the same as devoid of any merit.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp