This petition challenges a tax demand notice issued to the petitioner for a vehicle. The Court held that the notice is not illegal as the pendency of the appeal does not operate as a stay.
The 4th respondent directed to consider and pass orders on the pending application after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2006 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1928
WP(C).No. 30645 of 2006(W)
PETITIONER:
RAMLA BEEVI, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. MUHAMMED BASHEER, KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, PUTHENCHANTHA, MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASSAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------W.P.(C).NO.30645 of 2006-W
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2006 ---------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was in possession of a Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KLA 2385, for a period of ten days. She submits that she sold it to a third party, under Ext.P1 agreement dated 25-3-1996. Later, by Ext.P4 she has been called upon to pay tax for the said vehicle for the period from 1-4-1997 to 30-6-2005. The petitioner submits that this direction is issued without taking note of the intimation filed by her regarding the sale of the said vehicle. The petitioner appealed against Ext.P4, before the Deputy Transport Commissioner. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 18-9-2006. So, she has filed Ext.P5 revision, before the Transport Commissioner, the 4th respondent herein. During the pendency of the revision, she has been served with Ext.P6 demand notice, directing her to pay the amount covered by an earlier notice issued on 27-2-2004. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6.
WPC 30645/2006 -2-
revision petition will not operate as stay. Therefore, I find nothing illegal with Ext.P6. But, the 4th respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. If so advised, the petitioner may move the 4th respondent, for appropriate interim reliefs.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE.
MS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the tax demand notice issued against the petitioner is illegal despite her pendency of an appeal against an earlier notice.
Whether the Transport Commissioner should dispose of the pending appeal with a hearing to the petitioner.
Ramla Beevi
State of Kerala
Joint Regional Transport Officer, Kanjirappally
Deputy Transport Commissioner, Ernakulam
Transport Commissioner, Trivandrum
K.Balakrishnan Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
