Dismissed

The Tahsildar and Another v. Jacob.K.Mathew

Kerala HC23 Feb 2012WA/174/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a belated writ appeal and petition for condonation of delay. The court held that the defaulter's property became immune from attachment for tax recovery because it was sold before any statutory charge was created or attachment made under the Revenue Recovery Act, as the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act does not create such a charge.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal and petition for condonation of delay dismissed.

The Tahsildar and Another Vs Jacob.K.Mathew — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/4TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶6

WA.No. 174 of 2012 () IN WPC/26758/2008

¶7

---------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.26758/2008 DATED 30-03-2011

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT 1 & 2 IN WPC:

¶9

1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.

¶10

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GEORGE MECHERIL

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN WP(C):

¶13

1. JACOB.K.MATHEW,

¶14

S/O. K.V. MATHEW, KARITHADATHIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM, PIN - 686 664.

¶15

2. SHAJU.E.CHACKOCHAN, S/O. CHACKOCHAN, EDAKUZHI PUTHNPURAYIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM, PIN - 686 664.

¶16

3. BENNY, S/O. UTHUPPU, KUDILIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM - 686 664.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI. BIJU ABRAHAM

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

W.A.NO.174/2012

APPENDIX

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEX.A1: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.NO.21380/2006. ANNEX.A2: COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN WPC.NO.21380/2006. ANNEX.A3: COPY OF WPC.NO.23445/2007. ANNEX.A4: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.23445/2007.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶29

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶30

W.A. No. 174 of 2012 & C.M. Appl. No.87/2012

¶31

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2012

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶34

This highly belated Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring that first respondent's property cannot be proceeded against for recovery of arrears of motor vehicles tax due from third respondent. When the petition for condonation of delay came up for hearing, we have considered the appeal as well. The default period is from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2007. Admittedly, even before issuance of recovery notice, the defaulter had sold the property to another person in October, 2005, who in turn sold it again on 16.6.2007. The property of the first respondent, which originally belonged to the defaulter can be proceeded against only if there is a statutory charge for the tax or if there is a charge created by attachment under Revenue Recovery Act. The statute does not create

¶35

[W.A.No.174/12] 2

¶36

charge on the property of the vehicle owner, who is in arrears of tax and no recovery proceedings were initiated and no attachment was made under the Revenue Recovery Act at any time prior to the date of sale. So much so, in our view, the learned Single Judge rightly declared that the property is immune from attachment for recovery of tax. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the delay petition or in the appeal. Both are liable to be dismissed.

¶37

We feel this should be an eye-opener for the Government to introduce an amendment to Motor Vehicles Taxation Act creating charge on the property of the vehicle owner to the extent of arrears of tax so that at least in future defaulters do not siphon of property to avoid recovery of tax.

¶38

Writ Appeal as well as petition for condonation of delay are dismissed with the above observation.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶44

krs.

The Tahsildar and Another v. Jacob.K.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar and Another v. Jacob.K.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Janatha Charitable Society

Khemka Roller Flour Mills P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S.T.C.M. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi

The Manager, Union Christian College,Alu Vs the Government of Kerala

M/S.Abishek Exports Vs Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate