The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P10 and P11 notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act seeking recovery of motor vehicle tax for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.5.2003. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he was the registered owner of a stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KRZ-6944, and that on 3.3.2000, he had sold the vehicle to the 1st respondent. It is his further case that he had intimated the 3rd respondent of the fact of sale of the vehicle on 3.3.2000 and had also filed the necessary Form 29 for the said purpose. Thus, he had complied with the statutory procedure contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules for the purposes of intimating the 3rd respondent of the fact of sale. It is submitted that thereafter nothing was heard from the 3rd respondent but Exts.P10 and P11 notices were served on him demanding motor vehicle tax for the period aforementioned. The petitioner impugns Exts.P10 and P11 notices on the ground that after the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in favour of the 1st W.P.(C).NO.25105/2004 2 respondent, the liability to motor vehicle tax for the subsequent period could not be fastened on him. 2. I have heard Sri.Sunny Mathew, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Sri.Liju V. Stephen, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that this is a case where the petitioner, who was the registered owner of the stage carriage had sold the vehicle to the 1st respondent and intimated the 3rd respondent of the sale through the statutory procedure that is envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. Thus, by intimating the 3rd respondent of the fact of sale of the vehicle, the petitioner had done all that was required of him, in his capacity as transferor of the vehicle, under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, for the purposes of ensuring the recording of the change of ownership in the files before the registering authority. As this fact has not been disputed through any counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, I am constrained to hold that the proceedings initiated W.P.(C).NO.25105/2004 3 against the petitioner for recovery of the motor vehicle tax dues, that accrued for the periods subsequent to the date of transfer, by treating him as a registered owner of the vehicle, cannot be legally sustained. Resultantly, I quash Exts.P10 and P11 notices, issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, against the petitioner in respect of the motor vehicle tax dues for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.5.2003. The respondents are free to proceed against the vehicle for realisation of the tax dues. The writ petition, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is allowed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp