Petitioner challenged a tax demand as the registered owner, arguing he sold the vehicle years prior. Court held he was barred by a previous dismissal in Writ Appeal No.1933/04.
Writ petition dismissed with no banking as a similar contention rejected in prior dismissed OP and writ appeal.
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 P.R.RAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2007 / 26TH PAUSHA 1928
WP(C).No. 1727 of 2007(E)
-------------------------
PETITIONER:
---------------
T.K. VIBHURAJ, THAZHATHUMURIYIL HOUSE, K.R. PURAM, WEST ROAD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU
RESPONDENTS:
----------------
1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CHERTHALA.
2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) CHERTHALA.
4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTHIYATHOUD VILLAGE, CHERTHALA.
5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
6. E.M. JOSEPH, KALANJITHODATHIL HOUSE, MANGANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R.RAMAN, J.
```````````````````````````
W.P.(C) NO. 1727 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Exhibit P1 demand for motor vehicle
tax in respect of the motor vehicle KL-04/A.2314/06, for the period 1/1/06 to 31/12/2006. Admittedly, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. His contention is that he sold the vehicle on 29/3/1996 and as such he is not liable to pay any tax for the period subsequent to 29/3/1996. Admittedly for the period from 1/1/97 to 30/9/98, which is still subsequent to the period now in question, raising such contention he preferred an OP before this court as OP No.19600/2000 which was dismissed against which writ appeal No.1933/04 was also dismissed. This court having thus not upheld the contention now raised by the petitioner, and this being for a period prior thereto, no relief can be granted as he is bound by the decision rendered in the said OP and confirmed in writ appeal. In such circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Issue photocopy.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
Rp
WPC
: 2 :
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is liable for motor vehicle tax for the period 1/1/06 to 31/12/2006 when he was registered owner, considering a contrary decision in an earlier.OP/writ appeal dismissed.
Whether a petitioner can raise the same contention regarding liability when it was already conclusively negated in a previous proceeding dismissed against them.
T.K. Vibhuraj
Joint Regional Transport Officer
Regional Transport Officer
Deputy Tahsildar (R.R.)
Village Officer
District Collector
P.R. Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
