Disposed

U.Nasar v. the Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC14 Dec 2010WP(C)/33182/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner vendor of a stage carriage vehicle sought transfer of ownership and permit after purchase. Due to pending tax exemption claims regarding SARFAESI seizure period filed by the vendor-bank, the Transport Officer refused transfer. The High Court directed the Commissioner to expedite the pending revision petition within one month to resolve the tax queries. Disposition was made by issuing di

What did the court decide?

Direction to Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram to consider and pass orders on R.P. No.16/2010 within one month.

U.Nasar Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 33182 of 2010(W)

¶6

----------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-------------------

¶9

U.NAZAR, ASMA MANZIL, PERUMKULAM, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------------

¶13

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ATTINGAL, PIN-695101.

¶14

2. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KALLAMBALAM BRANCH, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695605.

¶15

R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

svs

¶19

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J

¶20

WP(C) NO. 33182 OF 2010

¶21

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2010

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Petitioner claims to have purchased a stage carriage vehicle bearing No. KL 16/C 5923 from the second respondent Bank. The registered owner of the vehicle is one Sri.Abdul Kareem. There exist a stage carriage permit in the name of the said person with respect to the vehicle, valid till 22.01.2012. The vehicle in question was hypothecated to second respondent, and due to non payment of monthly instalments it was taken over possession by the second respondent, invoking provisions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

¶24

On the basis of an understanding, the petitioner

¶25

had cleared payment of the dues and a sale certificate was issued by the 2^nd respondent in favour of the petitioner as evidenced from Ext.P3. The Bank had also issued a letter to

¶26

W.P © No.33182/2010

¶27

¶28

the registering authority to the effect that, they have no objection in transferring ownership and permit in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

It is evident from Ext.P5 that, the 2^nd respondent Bank submitted Form-G claiming exemption from payment of Motor Vehicle Tax due for the period from 01.04.2009 to 23.01.2010. According to the petitioner, inspite of purchase of the vehicle, the first respondent had not allowed transfer of the ownership and permit into the name of the petitioner and he could not ply the vehicle, because exemption from payment of tax was not endorsed for the above said period. Hence the petitioner seeks direction to the first respondent to grant exemption from payment of tax with respect to the vehicle on the basis of the G form intimation submitted by the second respondent Bank.

¶30

In a statement filed by standing counsel appearing for the second respondent Bank, it is admitted that the Bank took possession of the vehicle as on 11.03.2009 and that they have filed Form G intimation

¶31

W.P © No.33182/2010

¶32

¶33

claiming exemption from payment of tax for the period from 01.04.2009 onwards till the sale of the vehicle. But it is stated that on 25.03.2010 the claim of the second respondent Bank was rejected and further an appeal filed before the Deputy Transport Commissioner was also rejected on 02.07.2010. It is stated that the second respondent Bank had now approached the Transport Commissioner in a Revision Petition filed challenging the decision. A copy of the Revision Petition pending before the Transport Commissioner is produced as Annexure R2(a) along with the statement. It is further stated that the said petition is now pending consideration and disposal before the Transport Commissioner as R.P. No.16/2010.

¶34

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent on the basis of instructions conceded the fact regarding pending of the Revision Petition. It is also submitted that with respect to the period after 31.03.2010 the second respondent Bank had submitted further G Forms and those claims were also rejected by the registering

¶35

¶36

¶37

authority. Under such circumstances, it is mentioned that motor vehicle tax with respect to the vehicle is in arrears from 01.04.2009 onwards and therefore request of the petitioner to effect transfer of ownership as well as transfer of permit into his name, could not be considered.

¶38

Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above, I am of the view that it is for the petitioner as well as the second respondent to pursue the statutory remedy against rejection of the claim for exemption. It is evident that Revision Petition filed by the second respondent Bank before the Transport Commissioner for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010 is pending consideration and disposal. So also with respect to the period after 01.04.2010 the parties are at liberty to invoke statutory remedies against the rejection of the claim. However considering the fact that the liability for payment of tax pertaining to the period covered under the Revision Petition is now pending adjudication before the Transport Commissioner, I am of the view that the writ petition can be

¶39

¶40

¶41

disposed of on issuing necessary directions to that authority to expedite the matter.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of

¶43

directing the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram to consider and pas orders on R.P.No.16/2010, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the second respondent and all other parties concerned, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

It is made clear that the second respondent will

¶45

be at liberty to approach the said authority seeking appropriate interim relief. So also, it is made clear that the second respondent will be at liberty to take appropriate steps to challenge rejection of the claim for exemption for the subsequent periods, as provided under law.

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

¶47

directions.

¶48

C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶49

dnc

U.Nasar v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.Nasar v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janaki Vs the District Collector

T.a.Mounaguruswamy Vs Deputy Tahsildar

Santha.M.M. Vs Authorised Officer

M.Kumary Vs Office of the Recovery Officer and 3 Ors.

A.M.Abdul Hameed Vs Agrl. Income Tax & Commercial Tax Office

Anil Kumar Vs the Authorized Officer, South Indian Ban