Dismissed

M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. v. Dipu Varghese

Kerala HC3 Feb 2012WP(C)/1715/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a transport finance company challenging a motor vehicle tax demand. The Court held that since the petitioner admitted surrendering the vehicle to them via their own officer, they were liable to pay tax, rejecting arguments regarding unauthorized document issuance or procedural lapses.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. Vs Dipu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/14TH MAGHA, 1933 WP(C).No. 1715 of 2012 (L)

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

M/S. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 123, ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI AND A BRANCH OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, CEEPEES BUILDING, OPP ST. JOSEPH H.S, ALUVA ROAD, ANGAMALY REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. RAJU THOMAS CONSULTANT-LEGAL, M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD ERNAKULAM BRANCH.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): --------------

¶9

1. DIPU VARGHESE PALLIPPATTU HOUSE, NEAR EAST CHURCH, ANGAMALY. PIN-683 100.

¶10

2. JT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA-683 101.

¶11

3. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DY. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE-II, ERNAKULAM-682 001.

¶12

4. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, TRANS TOWERS VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

5. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, ALUVA, PIN-683 101.

¶14

R2 TO R5 BY ADV.SRI.S.JAMAL,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 1715 of 2012 (L)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 10.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 14/10/2010. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 30.10.2010. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT ON 12.11.2010 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 20.11.2010. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.02.2011. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE UNDER THE RTI ACT. EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 12.03.2011. EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT (CUSTODY LETTER) SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TAXATION OFFICER AND OBTAINED BY PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT AND TYPEE LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT P11. EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT (LAWYER NOTICE) SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TAXATION OFFICER AND OBTAINED BY PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT. EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM PREFERRED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT P4 ORDER. EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.05.2011 DISMISSING EXT P13 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO:1464/2011 DATED 7.09.2011 OF ANKAMALY POLICE STATION ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ALUVA. EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED AGAINST EXT P14 ORDER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2011 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DISMISSING EXT P15 REVISION PETITION.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶26

....................................................... W.P.(C).1715/2012

¶27

.............................................. Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. Company had financed a transport vehicle bearing registration No.KL-08U/8410, the registered owner of which is the first respondent.

¶30

In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P14 and P17 by which the motor vehicle tax for the period from 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008, is demanded from them. The case of the petitioner is that they are neither the registered owner nor were in possession of the vehicle and therefore, demand for motor vehicle tax is illegal.

¶31

The first order passed against the petitioner is Ext.P1 to which they filed their objection and Ext.P3 letter was issued. Subsequently, they were issued Ext.P4 memo against which an appeal was filed before the third respondent. That appeal was rejected by Ext.P14 order. In Ext.P14 order, it is stated inter alia thus:-

¶32

W.P.(C).1715/12

¶33

¶34

“At the time of hearing, he had produced report of the vehicle taken possession by the financier duly signed by the authorized signatory. He had also produced a copy of a legal Notice which was issued by one Mr.Dinesh O.V. Advocate on behalf of M/s Sreeram Transporting Finance in which state that the vehicle had already surrendered to them by registered owner.”

¶35

The aforesaid observation has been made with reference to the document produced by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Aluva, which are Exts.P11 and P12. Ext.P11 is the receipt issued by none other than an Officer of the petitioner Company, admitting that the vehicle in question was surrendered to the petitioner on 1.1.2008 and in Ext.P12, the lawyer notice, issued on behalf of the petitioner Company also, this fact is admitted. It is relying on these documents that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P14 order.

¶36

Aggrieved by Ext.P14, petitioner filed a revision before the fourth respondent and that the revision was also rejected by Ext.P17 order. In this order also, the aforesaid documents relied on by the third respondent have been relied against the petitioner. However, petitioner seeks to explain these documents by

¶37

W.P.(C).1715/12

¶38

¶39

contending that Exts.P11 and P12 documents were issued by an Officer of the Company unauthorizedly, that he is no longer in the service of the Company and that against the said Officer, criminal proceedings have been initiated, the F.I.R of which is Ext.P15.

¶40

I am not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner. As at present, the documents available with the officials show that the petitioner Company had accepted that the vehicle was surrendered to them with effect from 1.1.2008 and it is on that basis, the authorities have concurrently admitted that the petitioner is liable to pay tax for the period 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2008.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in Ext.P10, a reply given to the petitioner to a query under the Right to Information Act, the second respondent admitted that the registered owner had filed 'G' Form for the period 1.1.2008 to 31.3.2009. While it is true that there is such a statement in Ext.P10, fact remains that the vehicle was surrendered to the petitioner and the possession of the vehicle was taken over by the

¶42

W.P.(C).1715/12

¶43

¶44

petitioner with effect from 1.1.2008. In view of these facts, 'G' Form stated to have been filed by the registered owner will not relieve the petitioner from its liability for payment of tax. Therefore, I am not persuaded to think that Ext.P14 and P17 warrant interference, on these grounds.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Circular No.31/89 and contended that in passing orders, there is violation of the directions contained in the said Circular. As already seen, this case was decided based on the records of the petitioner themselves and therefore, even if the procedural formalities laid down in the Circular are deviated and no rejudice is caused to the petitioner and therefore, in my view that will not invalidate the decision taken.

¶46

Writ petition is dismissed.

¶47

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶48

mrcs

M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. v. Dipu Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. v. Dipu Varghese

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

Sudheesh.S. Vs Sudharam.R.

Joy Thomas and Others Vs State Bank of India and Others

Indu Gopi Vs South Indian Bank Ltd.

Sujatha Kavumkal Vs Satheesan, District Collector, Ksd

S.Maheen Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Firoz Vs Commercial Tax Inspector