The petitioner challenges the tax recovery initiated for the motor vehicles tax due on the vehicle KL-17/B-2436 between 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2013. The petitioner's contention is that in fact the said vehicle was purchased by the petitioner on a hire purchase agreement and that even when the hire purchase agreement was pending, the same was transferred in the name of the additional 4th respondent herein. It is the case of the petitioner that though the additional 4th respondent had agreed to pay the instalments, the same was defaulted and the conditions of the agreement by which the transfer was effected, were not complied with by the additional 4th respondent. In the context of the transfer having been effected to the 4th respondent, it is the contention of the petitioner that no tax liability could be mulcted on the petitioner. 2. In fact when earlier tax dues were sought to be recovered from the petitioner for the very same vehicle, the petitioner was before this Court and the writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P6 judgment. This Court, however, found that the official respondents are free to proceed against the vehicle, if it is in existence, and the petitioner and the 4th respondent are simultaneously liable for recovery of the arrears of motor vehicles tax. The petitioner's remedy to recover the tax amounts from the 4th respondent was also left open. The petitioner's contention is that at least from the date of the said judgment, the petitioner be absolved from the liability to pay the motor vehicles tax, especially since the tax, which was the subject matter of Exhibit P6, has been satisfied by the petitioner.
3. It is to be noticed that in effecting transfer of ownership of the vehicle, 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. 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 kept such vehicle for use in the State. Hence, as has been held by the learned Single Judge in Exhibit P6 judgment, 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 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 Exhibit P9. The petitioner shall be granted four equal monthly instalments to satisfy the demand as per Exhibit P9, if such a request is made. Necessarily the petitioner would have reserved the liberty to proceed against the additional 4th respondent, if so advised.
The writ petition is dismissed; however, with the above direction for grant of instalments. Parties shall suffer their respective costs.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
( true copy )