The petitioner contends that he owned a truck bearing Reg. No. KL-7C/7056, which is a 1993 model vehicle and sold in the year 2010 itself. The petitioner also contends that subsequently, the vehicle has been dismantled. It is trite that on sale, an intimation is mandated under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On dismantling again, Section 55 is applicable, wherein an intimation is required before the dismantling is carried on. Admittedly, neither of the above stipulations were complied with by the petitioner. In such circumstance, the recovery proceedings for tax cannot be faulted with. 2. The petitioner contends that in fact, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- as per Ext.P1 to P6 certificate as against the dues now demanded in Ext.P7. The petitioner would be entitled to approach the recovery W.P.(C) No. 15648 of 2014 2 officer, who has issued Ext.P7 and point out the above payments and if found correct, the same definitely has to be given credit. The petitioner could also request for instalments to pay of the entire dues in which case, the 2nd respondent shall grant six instalments to pay of the due amounts. If the petitioner, in accordance with law; approaches the authority for cancellation of registration then necessarily, the same has to be considered.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB