Disposed

Shaji.P. v. the Deputy Tahsildar

Kerala HC5 Dec 2013WP(C)/29206/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner, claiming to be a transferor of a repossessed vehicle, may apply for a reassessment of tax liability. It ordered coercive measures suspended if the petitioner deposits ₹25,000 and provides transferee details within three weeks. Any resulting order is appealable.

What did the court decide?

Coercive proceedings and demand notices stayed pending payment of ₹25,000 and furnishing transferee details within three weeks.

Shaji.P. Vs the Deputy Tahsildar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 29206 of 2013 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAJI.P.

¶8

S/O.KADUNGONE, PAROLLATHIL HOUSE, CHEKKIYAD P O PARAKKADAVU, VATAKARA

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NIRMAL. S

¶10

SMT.VEENA HARI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673001

¶13

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673001

¶14

S.PRABHA DEVI FINANCIERS, 4/5,THOLASINGHAM STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI

¶15

DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶16

COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673001

¶17

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAFEEK.V.K.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 29206 of 2013 (A)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE REGISTRATION OF THE HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE BEARING NO KL 11 8136

¶23

EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT

¶24

EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DTD 22/5/2013

¶25

EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S.7 DTD 1/7/2013

¶26

EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 34 DTD 1/7/2013

¶27

EXT.P6:_TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DTD 11/9/2013

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

¶29

//TRUE COPY//

¶30

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶31

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶32

W.P (C) No.29206 of 2013

¶33

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2013

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner claims to be a transferor of the vehicle KL-11-8136 from the hirer with the concurrence of the third respondent financier. It is conceded that the vehicle was since repossessed by the financier and later sold to another. The vehicle underwent another transfer and has subsequently been scraped according to the petitioner. The petitioner in short disclaims his liability to pay motor vehicles tax for the vehicle for the period in question. The remedy open to the petitioner is to move the second respondent for determination of the liability with notice to the financier and all transferees. An application if so filed by the petitioner within three weeks shall be dealt with by the second respondent within six weeks therefrom. All the alleged transferees of the vehicle shall be put on notice notwithstanding the fact that the transfer was not duly intimated to the department under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶36

The coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and

¶37

¶38

W.P (C) No.29206 of 2013

¶39

P6 memos as well as Exts.P4 and P5 notices shall be put on hold in the meanwhile. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner remits a sum of ` 25,000/- with the second respondent within a period of three weeks. The coercive steps can surge ahead if the petitioner commits default in the compliance of the conditions above.

¶40

It is the duty of the petitioner to furnish the name

¶41

and addresses of all the alleged transferees of the vehicle to the second respondent. Any order so passed by the second respondent is appealable under Section 23 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.

¶42

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶43

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶44

nj.

Shaji.P. v. the Deputy Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji.P. v. the Deputy Tahsildar

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

Salmath Vs I.D.C.B.

Mathew Varghese Vs the District Collector

M/S.a.B.M Civil Ventures Private Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

M/S. Lg Electronics India (P) Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissiner (Assmnt)

P.C.Chacko Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

Sunil Datt Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.