Antony Dominic, J. 1. Appellant filed W.P(C).22925/14 challenging Ext.P6 order, whereby, the prayer for stay of recovery proceedings against them was declined by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, the first respondent. In the judgment under appeal, learned single Judge granted stay on condition that the appellant remits 50% of the tax due and it is challenging this judgment, the appeal is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. In the nature of the order that we propose to pass, it is unnecessary to issue notice to respondents 3 and 4.
3. Appellant is the financier of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-03 C 567. The registered owner of the vehicle is the 4th respondent. He committed default and the possession of the vehicle was resumed by the appellant. It appears that during the period when the appellant was in possession, tax was demanded. The appellant had paid the tax and a dispute in relation thereto is pending consideration of this Court. It appears that subsequently, there was an agreement between the 4th respondent and the 3rd respondent and the vehicle was transferred to the 3rd respondent who also appears to have transferred it subsequently. It was while so that tax for the period 2011-13 was demanded from the appellant and on account of its non payment recovery proceedings were initiated, which came to be questioned in an appeal.
4. The specific contention raised by the appellant is that under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act to be held them liable to pay tax, they should either be registered owner or a person in possession of the vehicle. It is contended that even according to the respondents, they do not satisfy either of the two conditions and therefore, they are not liable to be proceeded against.
5. In our view, this is a contention which ought to be considered by the appellate authority before whom the appeal filed by the appellant is pending. Therefore, we refrain ourselves from pronouncing anything on that. However, fact remains that despite such a prima facie case made out, learned single Judge has ordered stay of the recovery proceedings only on remittance of 50% of the demand. This condition, according to us, is an onerous one and requires to be modified.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct that stay as ordered by the learned single Judge will be subject to the appellant remitting 25% of the amount demanded from them. Such remittance should be made within 10 days from today. Subject to the above modification, the judgment in the writ petition will stand confirmed.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
kkb.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.
/TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE