The petitioner challenges the tax recovery initiated by Exhibits P2 and P3, for the motor vehicles tax due on the vehicle KL-9/A-7848 upto 31.12.2004. The petitioner contends that he had sold the vehicle to the 4th respondent by way of Exhibit P1 agreement and the liability of tax is on the said respondent. 2. Transfer of possession and handing over of a vehicle 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 kept such vehicle for use in the State. Hence, the official respondents 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 WP(C).No.9031/2008 - 2 -
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. In such circumstance, there cannot be any interdiction of the recovery proceedings initiated as per Exhibits P2 and P3. The petitioner shall be granted six equal monthly instalments to satisfy the demand as per Exhibits P2 and P3, if such a request is made. Necessarily the petitioner would have reserved, the liberty, to proceed against the 4th respondent, if so advised.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction for grant of instalments. Parties shall suffer their respective costs.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
( true copy )