Petitioner is the registered owner of a bus bearing registration No.KL.04.F-6930. She is aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8 notices proposing recovery of motor vehicle tax from her in respect of the said vehicle for the period from 1.7.2007 to 30.9.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that she had sold the vehicle to the 5th respondent on 19.10.2005 and therefore she could not have been made liable or proceeded against in respect of motor vehicle tax dues for the period subsequent to the date of transfer of the vehicle. 2. I have heard Sri.Thomas Joseph, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Smt.Lilly.K.T., the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that, in this case, although it is the case of the petitioner that she had sold the vehicle to W.P.(C).No.10997/2008 2 the 5th respondent on 19.10.2005, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had not followed the statutory procedure, envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, of intimating the sale of the vehicle to the registering authorities for getting the ownership of the vehicle transferred in the files before the registering authority. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not claim any exemption from payment of tax by following the statutory procedure under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for the purposes of obtaining exemption. In that view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with Exts.P7 and P8 demand notices issued on the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp