Partly allowed

Shaji C. Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2012WA/341/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a writ appeal in part, holding the appellant liable for motor vehicle tax as the registered owner of a truck that was unsold. The court modified the impugned order to treat the demanded amount as full and final liability, granted time to pay, and directed cancellation of registration and cessation of separate fitness recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Summoning of the Addl. District Court to close A.S. No. 158/2011 as infructuous; Appellant granted time to pay full liability; Registration cancellation upon payment.

Shaji C. Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | 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

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/26TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶6

WA.No. 341 of 2012 () IN WPC/33995/2011

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.33995/2011 DATED 08-02-2012

¶8

APPELLANT(S):/ PETITIONER

¶9

SHAJI C. MATHEW S/O.MATHEW, CHEERAKATHOTTATHIL, PAINGOTTOOR P.O. KOTHAMANGLAM, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):/ RESPONDENTS

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

¶14

STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶15

2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

¶16

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691

¶17

3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

¶18

REGIONAL TRANPORT OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686691

¶19

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶20

ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU ERNAKULAM -682030.

¶21

BY MR.BOBBY JOHN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.A.NO.341/2012

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS

¶26

ANNEXURE-A1 : COPY OF INTERROGATORIES DATED 20/11/2008 DELIVERED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.21/2005 OF THE SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶27

ANNEXURE-A2 : COPY OF ANSWERS TO ANNEXURE-A1 SUBMITTED BY R2 DATED 07/08/2009.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

C.R.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

¶33

W.A. No.341 of 2012

¶34

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2012.

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶37

This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge sustaining the demand of Motor Vehicles Tax against the appellant in respect of vehicle bearing Regn.No.KRK-2090 for the periods up to 17/03/2004.

¶38

We have heard Shri.Alexander Joseph, learned counsel for the appellant, and also learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶39

The appellant purchased a second hand 1980 model TATA truck bearing Regn.No.KRK-2090 from the first owner of the vehicle. After using the vehicle for few months the appellant resold the vehicle to another person but without changing the registration. It is on record that tax was paid for the vehicle up to 1993. However, thereafter the vehicle fell in arrears of tax and on enquiry conducted by the Department,

¶40

W.A.No.341/2012

¶41

-2-

¶42

the vehicle was not traced out. The appellant's case is that the appellant having sold the vehicle, no recovery of motor vehicle tax could be made from the appellant. Alternate contention raised is that by virtue of the operation of Section 41(7) read with Section 56, registration of the vehicle automatically got invalidated on expiry of 15 years and therefore tax cannot be demanded for periods beyond 1995.

¶43

Learned Government Pleader has opposed the Appeal by stating that the vehicle has no life prescribed under Section 56 and so much so, registration continues until it is cancelled by the registering authority. His further contention is that irrespective of whether certificate of fitness is taken or not, the liability for vehicle continues and tax could be recovered until such time registration is cancelled. It is also conceded that a Suit was filed against the revenue recovery proceedings which though was dismissed is challenged in Appeal as A.S.No.158/2011 before the Additional District Court, Muvattupuzha and the Appeal is still pending.

¶44

After hearing both sides and after going through the

¶45

W.A.No.341/2012

¶46

-3-

¶47

statutory provisions what we notice is that Section 41(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for validity of registration of motor vehicles other than transport vehicles for 15 years. Since the vehicle involved is a truck in this case, the validity of registration provided by Section 41(7) does not apply to it. Section 56 reads as follows:-

¶48

“Section 56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles:(1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorised testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder:

¶49

Provided that where the prescribed authority or the authorised testing station refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal.”

¶50

Relying on Section 56(1) the appellant's counsel submitted that the vehicle which does not have certificate of fitness

¶51

cannot be treated as a registered vehicle, and so much so, the motor vehicle tax cannot be demanded under Section 3(3) of

¶52

W.A.No.341/2012

¶53

-4-

¶54

the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976.

¶55

However, learned Government Pleader opposed the contention by stating that Section 56 is subject to Section 59 and so far as trucks are concerned, the Central Government has not prescribed any period of expiry for registration of transport vehicles. Section 56 read with Section 59 makes it clear that for a transport vehicle like a truck registration is valid as long as it is not cancelled on request by the registered owner. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules to treat the registration as cancelled for want of certificate of fitness contemplated under Section 56(1) of the Act. The use of a transport vehicle without certificate of fitness is an independent offence for which vehicle can be detained or proceeded against, but in our view, so long as the Central Government has not prescribed any period of validity for registration under Section 59, registration continues for transport vehicles even after expiry of certificate of fitness issued for any given period. So much so, the appellant's contention that the vehicle ceased to be registered on expiry

¶56

W.A.No.341/2012

¶57

-5-

¶58

of 15 years in 1995 does not apply to the truck, of which the appellant was admittedly the registered owner.

¶59

The last contention raised to resist the demand of

¶60

motor vehicle tax for the vehicle is the alleged sale made by the appellant. In our view, there is no need to consider whether there is evidence of sale or not because Section 3(3) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act provides for recovery of motor vehicle tax from the registered owner or from the person in possession and control of the vehicle. In this case, neither the respondents nor the appellant could trace the vehicle. So much so, necessarily liability falls on the registered owner, which the appellant was and is. Consequently, demand of motor vehicle tax from the appellant is perfectly in order.

¶61

The appellant's last grievance is that the vehicle is already demolished. Though the purchaser would have done it without clearing the arrears of tax and without cancelling the registration issued to it, the arrears of tax now demanded is as on 17/03/2004, which covers a period of 24 years from the date of manufacturing. We feel any more demand of tax for

¶62

W.A.No.341/2012

¶63

-6-

¶64

the vehicle, which could not be traced even by the Department, is harsh on the appellant, whose fault is only sale of the vehicle without getting it endorsed in the RC book.

¶65

We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal in part by modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge and all the impugned notices and proceedings against the appellant as follows:-

¶66

(1) The arrears now demanded shall be treated as full and final liability towards motor vehicle tax due for the vehicle without any further interest or surcharge for defaults. In other words, the amount demanded at Rs.1,22,563/-, of which appellant has already paid 50%, shall be treated as full and final liability for the vehicle. The appellant is granted two months' time to clear the balance arrears without any further interest or collection charges.

¶67

(2) As and when payment is made, the Tahsildar will report the payment to the RTO concerned, who will cancel the registration of the vehicle with effect from 17/03/2004.

¶68

(3) There will be direction to the RTO or any Motor Vehicle Authority not to proceed for recovery of tax or any fine or any

¶69

W.A.No.341/2012

¶70

-7-

¶71

other amount for want of permit or fitness certificate for the vehicle from the appellant.

¶72

(4) Since we are disposing of the Writ Appeal finally, A.S.No.158/2011 filed before the Additional District Court, Muvattupuzha has become infructuous, and we direct the Addl. District Court, Muvattupuzha to give a posting and close the A.S. as infructuous. The appellant will produce a copy of this judgment before the Addl. District Court, Muvattupuzha, for compliance.

¶73

This Writ Appeal is partly allowed as above.

¶74

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶75

(BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶76

Shaji C. Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji C. Mathew v. State of Kerala

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

State of Kerala Vs Saramma Zachariah

K.M.Mani Vs State of Kerala

Nair Service Society Vs the State of Kerala

E.Abdul Vahid Vs State of Kerala and Others

Joy Abraham Vs the Corporate Manager

State of Kerala Vs P.Sadanandan