The petitioner, who was the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-13/H-2607, is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order dated 19.01.2010 of the 2nd respondent that confirms the demand of motor vehicle tax dues from the petitioner for the last quarter of 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to a sale agreement entered into with the 3rd respondent, the vehicle was in the possession of the 3rd respondent after 22.08.2005. Thereafter, by Exts.P2 and P3 notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, the respondents had demanded motor vehicle tax dues in respect of the vehicle for the last quarter of 2008. Aggrieved by the said notices the petitioner approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.27227 of 2009, which was disposed by Ext.P7 judgment that directed the 4th respondent to conduct an enquiry in the matter. Thereafter, Ext.P8 order was passed by the 2nd respondent, based on the report of the 4th respondent, finding that the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle in the files of the registering authority under the motor vehicle Act and hence was liable to pay motor vehicle tax dues under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act for the period under consideration.
Ext.P8 order, as noted above, is impugned in the writ petition.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, who would base his submissions on the statement filed by the 4th respondent in this matter. It is pointed out that the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle and he had also produced a statement in stamp paper undertaking to discharge all liabilities, in respect of the vehicle, due to the Government. A copy of the statement is also produced as Annexure-R4(c) along with the statement filed by the 4th respondent. It is also pointed out that no application was filed by the petitioner for a transfer of the vehicle in the name of the 3rd respondent and hence, as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, proceedings for realization of tax could be taken even against the petitioner.
3. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar. It is not in dispute in the instant case that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not follow the statutory procedure under the Motor Vehicles Act for the purposes of intimating the respondents of any change in ownership of the vehicle. In terms of Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, the petitioner, in his capacity as registered owner of the vehicle, can also be proceeded against for realisation of motor vehicle tax dues on the vehicle. Under such circumstances, and taking into account the submission of the Government Pleader that the vehicle itself is not traceable now, I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P8 order that is impugned in the writ petition.
Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns