The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
i. To call for the records leading to Ext.P14 order and issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order of direction, quashing Ext.P14 order issued by the 2nd respondent, forthwith; and
ii. To call for the records leading to Ext.P15 and 15(a) recovery notices and issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing Ext.P15 and P15(a) notices issued by the 4th respondent consequent to Ext.P14 order.
iii. To declare that the petitioner is liable to pay the motor vehicle tax as per Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, only on the net purchase price paid to the seller in Ext.P1 invoice and levy of motor vehicle tax on the amount inclusive of sale tax and cess is illegal, beyond the authority and unconstitutional and also direct the 2nd respondent to refund an amount of Rs.34,777/- tax collected in excess in Ext.P9 to the petitioner, forthwith.
iv. To declare that the provisions of Section 2(ii) and Section 7(1)(b) of the Kerala Finance Act, 2014 are unconstitutional and thereby the substituted definition of “purchase value” in Section 2(1)(e) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 as per Kerala Finance Act,2014 is illegal and unconstitutional.
v. Direct the respondents to pay cost of this proceedings.
vi. Grant any other relief, in the interest of justice, which this Honourable Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.
3. The challenge raised by the petitioner is mainly against Ext.P14 order, passed by the second respondent. Obviously, the said order was passed exactly 'one' year ago on 04.12.2013. The only explanation of the petitioner for the inordinate delay is that, the petitioner had consulted a legal consultant, when the petitioner was advised that Ext.P14 need not be challenged and that the amount was to be satisfied. It was thereafter, that another consultation took place, when the petitioner was advised to have it challenged and hence, the present writ petition. The version of the writ petition, as it appears in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition, is extracted below:
“13. Aggrieved by Ext.P14, petitioner approached his legal consultant to challenge the said order, which is passed against the legal principles settled by this Honourable Court. But he was advised to remit the tax demanded in Ext.P14, stating the ground that earlier view of this Honourable Court was reversed in Dr.Mercy George and others v. Joint RTO, 2013 (4) KLT 157. Hence the petitioner did not proceeded with the matter, thereafter.
14. Meanwhile, a recovery notices are served to the petitioner from the office of the 4th respondent asking him to remit the demand finalized in Ext.P14 order. On receipt of Ext.P14, the petitioner consulted the matter with another lawyer, who advised him to challenge Ext.P14 order, since the advised he obtained on Ext.P14 is not correct, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Honourable Court dated 06.12.2013 rejecting the reference made in 2013(4)KLT 157. True copy of the Demand Notice No 2014/25012/8/200 dated 14.11.2014 issued under Section 7 of the RR Act by the 4th respondent is produced herewith and may be marked as Ext.P15. True copy of the Demand Notice No 2014/25012/8/200 dated 14.11.2014 issued under Section 34 of the RR Act by the 4th respondent is produced herewith and may be marked as Ext.P15(a).”
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not at all palatable to this Court. There is inordinate delay in raising the challenge. The petitioner was simply sleeping over arm chair. The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is not to be extended to a person like the petitioner herein, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Ravindranath Bose v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 470. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
5. However, considering the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the plight of the petitioner's establishment as on date and the extent of liability involved, the petitioner is permitted to liquidate the liability by way of 'four' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 31st of December, 2014, followed by similar instalments, to be effected on or before the last working day of the succeeding months, subject to which, the coercive provisions shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is also made clear that, if any default is made with regard to satisfaction of the instalments, it will be open for the respondents to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump, by pursuing such steps from the stage where it stands now.
Sd/-P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge lsn