Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Kerala
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Raveendran

High Court Of Kerala|21 October, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The petitioner was in possession of a vehicle, that was obtained from a financier, for some time. It is stated that the vehicle was repossessed by the financier on 30.10.2003. Thereafter, a demand was made for the arrears of motor vehicle tax, due on the vehicle in question, for the period from 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2005, by Exts.P2 and P3 notices. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the tax upto 31.10.2003, when the petitioner was in possession of the vehicle, has already been paid by the petitioner and, therefore, for the period subsequent to that, the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount by way of motor vehicle tax dues on the vehicle in question. 2. I have heard Smt.Deepthi S. Menon, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also Smt.Lilly.K.T., the learned Government Pleader 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 am of the view that this is W.P.(C).NO.23439/2006 2 a case where the petitioner was admittedly not the registered owner of the vehicle in question. It is not in dispute that he was in possession of the vehicle only for the period upto 30.10.2003. The motor vehicle tax dues in respect of the vehicle for the period upto that date has already been discharged by the petitioner. Annexure-I receipt has been produced by the petitioner to evidence this fact. For the period subsequent to 30.10.2003, when admittedly the petitioner was not in possession of the vehicle, he could not have been made liable for tax dues. Under these circumstances, I find that the demand of motor vehicle tax dues, for the period subsequent to 30.10.2003, as against the petitioner, cannot be legally sustained. Insofar as it is not in dispute that the motor vehicle tax dues upto 30.10.2003 has already been discharged by the petitioner, the writ petition, in its challenge against Exts.P2 and P3 notices, must necessarily succeed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by quashing Exts.P2 and P3 notices to the extent indicated above.
prp A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Raveendran

Court

High Court Of Kerala

JudgmentDate
21 October, 2014
Judges
  • A K Jayasankaran Nambiar
Advocates
  • Sri
  • S Manu