Disposed

Suresh v. the Regional Transport Officer,Alappuzha

Kerala HC8 Apr 2013WP(C)/33946/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged tax recovery action for a vehicle allegedly dismantled. Court stayed recovery proceedings pending consideration of cancellation application and directed petitioner to submit a copy of his earlier application.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings stayed; Petitioner directed to submit copy of application for cancellation; Respondent to pass orders within six weeks.

Suresh Vs the Regional Transport Officer,Alappuzha — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/18TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 33946 of 2011 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SURESH, 862/F(8/71), KURAVANTHODU VELI, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 4.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA, PIN- 688 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA- 688 001

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA PIN- 688 565.

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -688 004.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C)NO.33946/2011

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1 COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED -2-2011

¶21

P2 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28/1/2011

¶22

P3 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.2011/1664/4/100 DATED 24/10/2011

¶23

P4 COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 19/10/2011

¶24

P5 COPY OF THE TAX TOKEN VEHICLE NO.KL 07/B 1634 DATED 31/1/2012

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶31

W.P(C).No.33946 of 2011

¶32

------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2013

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶35

2.Petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue recovery action taken for realising the motor vehicle tax due in respect of a Heavy Goods Carriage Vehicle with Registration No.KL 7B 1634. The demand for tax is for the period from 1.10.2008 to 31.3.2011 and according to the petitioner, he has already submitted an application for cancellation of the registration, pointing out that the vehicle itself has been dismantled on 30.12.2008. Further, it is submitted that the vehicle has been sold as scrap. It is in this circumstance, this writ petition has been filed.

¶36

3.In view of the submission made by the petitioner that the RC book has been surrendered for cancellation, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions on the said submission. Instructions have been

¶37

¶38

WPC.33946/11

¶39

obtained which is to the effect that on 10.9.2008, an application has been received by the respondents. However, respondents say that the same is not traceable.

¶40

Thus, from the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, it is evident that an application has been submitted by the petitioner and if favourable orders were passed on that application, there would not have been any liability on the petitioner for the period from 1.10.2008 onwards. Therefore, at this stage, what is required is that the application should be considered by the respondents and orders thereon should be passed and in the mean while, the recovery proceedings should be kept in abeyance. However, even for that, since the application is not traceable, the petitioner should make a fresh application.

¶41

5.In the light of the above, I direct that the petitioner shall submit a copy of the application which he submitted on 10.9.2008 to the first respondent. This shall be done at any

¶42

¶43

WPC.33946/11

¶44

rate within two weeks from today. If the application is submitted as above, the first respondent will consider the same in accordance with law and orders thereon shall be passed at any rate within six weeks thereafter. It is directed that in the meanwhile, recovery proceedings now initiated against the petitioner by Exts.P2 to P4 will stand stayed.

¶45

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

kkb.8/4.

Suresh v. the Regional Transport Officer,Alappuzha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. the Regional Transport Officer,Alappuzha

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

Manager, Deshabhimani Press Vs v.R.Balakrishnan

Rosy Vs District Collector

V.B.Rajkumar Vs State of Kerala

M/S.West India Steel Company Limited Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Beena a Vs District Manager and Another

M.D.Jayanthan Namboodiripad Vs State of Kerala