Dismissed

Vijayrajan v. the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Karunagappally

Kerala HC7 Nov 2014WP(C)/25592/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition against tax recovery proceedings served on a petitioner, directing the finance company (financier) to pay the outstanding tax to the Transport Officer after crediting the petitioner's interim payment, based on a prior precedent holding financiers liable as operators.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent (finance company) to satisfy the tax liability to the 2nd respondent within one month, crediting the petitioner's interim payment of Rs.15,000.

Vijayrajan Vs the Tahsildar, Taluk Office… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/16TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 25592 of 2014 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VIJAYRAJAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, VIJAYA BHAVAN, PULIVADAKKU THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 523.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ELDHO PAUL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 518.

¶11

2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 518.

¶12

3. THE MANAGER,

¶13

SREE RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1ST FLOOR, KILIYILETHU PLAZA, NEAR K.S.R.T.C BUS SRTAND, KAYAMKULAM ALLEPPEY DISTICT - 690 502.

¶14

R1 & 2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN R3 BY ADVS. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN SRI.P.RAKESH (VAIKOM)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 25592 of 2014 (Y)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 10.12.10.

¶21

P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 11.12.13.

¶22

P3 (A) & P3(B) - TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ACT AND THE DEMAND NOTICE PRIOR TO THE ATTACHEMENT OF LAND UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE R.R.ACT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 25592 of 2014

¶31

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner, who was registered owner of the vehicle bearing

¶34

No. KL7 B 8766, availed a financial assistance to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent company. But the repayment could not be effected on time, hence the possession of the vehicle was taken over on 10.12.2010. Years after, the petitioner has been served with Exts. P3 (a) and P3(b) notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, requiring the petitioner to satisfy tax arrears in respect of the said vehicle, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by way of this writ petition.

¶35

When the matter came up for consideration on 01.10.2014, the coercive proceedings were intercepted, subject to satisfaction of an amount of Rs.15,000/- with ten days. The mandate of law is discernible from Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, holding that the liability is upon the registered owner of the vehicle as well, though the person who is having control over the vehicle is also liable to satisfy tax.

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 25592 of 2014

¶37

: 2 :

¶38

Heard the learned standing counsel for the 3^rd respondent as well, who concedes that physical possession of the vehicle was taken over by the said respondent on 10.12.2010. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits that balance liability will be cleared by the said respondent within one month and submits that the motor vehicle tax was cleared by the petitioner only till 01.07.2010. As such, the tax in respect of the period of from that date till 31.12.2010 is liable to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has complied with the condition imposed by this Court vide interim order dated 01.10.2010 and that the petitioner is not disputing the liability in respect of the period prior to possession of the vehicle taken over by the 3^rd respondent.

¶40

The scope of the provision had come up for consideration of this Court and as per the decision rendered in M/s Motor &

¶41

General Finance Ltd. Vs. Deputy Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors. [2010 (2) KHC 708], it is held that since the financier comes within the definition of the term 'operator', he is liable liable to pay the arrears of tax.

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 25592 of 2014

¶43

: 3 :

¶44

After hearing both the sides, including the learned Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to satisfy tax liability to the second respondent, which is remaining to be satisfied as per Exts. P3(a) and P3(b) within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No further steps need to be taken against the petitioner. While computing the actual amount to be satisfied by the petitioner, Rs.15,000/- remitted by the petitioner pursuant to interim order dated 01.10.2014 shall be given credit to. If there is any default it will be open for the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the 3^rd respondent.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶47

kmd

Vijayrajan v. the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Karunagappally

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayrajan v. the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Karunagappally

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiraj Jose Vs State Bank of Travancore

Muneer.K Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Reghunathan Nair Vs the Authorised Officer

Antony K.R Vs N.a.Kripa

P.K.Ashraf Vs Thangavelu

Rajagopalan T.N. Vs State of Kerala