The petitioner is aggrieved with the recovery of tax demanded as per Ext.P3. The petitioner was admittedly, the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 11T 4602. The petitioner contends that his son-in-law was operating the vehicle. The son-in-law sold the vehicle to the 4th respondent. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P2, a judgment in which the 4th respondent invoked the jurisdiction of this Court against Police harassment, wherein he has admitted that he is in possession of the vehicle. In fact, in Ext.P2 judgment the 4th respondent admitted that he is in possession of the vehicle and hence, it is the contention of the petitioner that the 4th respondent should be proceeded against or the vehicle should be taken into custody and sold for realisation of the amounts due. 2. It is to be noticed that, after sale of a motor vehicle, for effecting transfer of ownership, the transferor shall intimate the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is made, that factum of transfer in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, as per Section 50(1)(a)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Admittedly no such intimation has been given to the Registering Authority. The petitioner relies on an agreement, which, according to him, evidences the factum of transfer, to the 4th respondent.
3. Transfer of a vehicle and handing over of valid possession by way of an agreement is an accepted practise, which is also legally permissible. Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 provides for levy of tax; and sub-section (3) provides that the registered owner or any person having possession or control over a motor vehicle shall be deemed to use or has kept such vehicle for use in the State. Hence, the official respondents 1 and 2 are perfectly entitled to proceed against the registered owner as also the person who is in possession or control over the vehicle. If any dispute as to the possession or control of a vehicle is in existence between the parties, the same would have to be necessarily adjudicated before the appropriate civil forum. But that would not in any way affect the right of the Department to proceed against either of the aforesaid persons for satisfaction of tax liability.
4. It is the option of the authorities to proceed to seize the vehicle and sell for recovery of tax dues. That will also not preclude the authority from enquiring into, who is in control of the vehicle and in proceeding against such person. It is also open to the authorities to proceed either against the registered owner or against the person in control of the vehicle, or even together since the liability to pay tax, under Section 3(3) is; joint and several. Hence, the proceedings now taken against the petitioner, the registered owner of the vehicle cannot be faulted.
5. If the petitioner wants to deposit the amounts in instalments, the petitioner shall approach the authority within a period of one month and the authority shall grant 10 equal monthly instalments. The payment, if any, made by the petitioner, as aforesaid, will not stand against the right of the petitioner to proceed against the 4th respondent; before the appropriate forum. It is made clear that the Taxation authorities shall be entitled to proceed against the petitioner, 4th respondent, or for sale of the vehicle itself, for recovery of tax, the option for which is within the exclusive domain of the authority.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A toJudge