The petitioner who owned a vehicle bearing registration No. KL8 Q 3515 states that the vehicle was seized by the tax authority under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act for default of tax on 03.12.2007. Thereafter, by Ext.P4 demand notice, motor vehicle tax was demanded from the petitioner for a period from 01.01.2008 to 31.03.2009. The specific case of the petitioner is that after the seizure of the vehicle on 03.12.2007, he was neither in possession or control of the vehicle and accordingly, he could not be fastened with the liability to pay tax on the said vehicle.
2. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner was shown as the registered owner of the vehicle during the period in question, that he had not followed the statutory procedure for claiming exemption from motor vehicle tax by filing a necessary 'G' Form for the period in question. That whenever 'G' Form was actually filed, the benefit of exemption was granted to the petitioner and it was on account of the fact that the petitioner continued to be shown as the registered owner of the vehicle in the registers before the registering authority that proceedings were initiated against W.P.(C).No.9226 of 2009 -2-
him.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that, insofar as the petitioner has not complied with the statutory procedure required to insulate him from a demand of motor vehicle tax, either through a valid intimation to the registering authority regarding the fact of seizure of the vehicle or through the filing of G Forms claiming exemption from tax, there are no valid grounds made out by the petitioner for an interference with the demand raised on him. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns W.P.(C).No.9226 of 2009 -3-