Partly allowed

Omanakuttan Pillai v. the Joint Rto

Kerala HC31 Oct 2014WP(C)/26010/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, registered owner of a vehicle, challenged revenue recovery proceedings for tax arrears claiming the vehicle was under repair. Court dismissed the plea for total exemption but allowed clearing liability in four monthly installMENTS, keeping proceedings in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to clear outstanding liability by four equal monthly instalments; recovery proceedings kept in abeyance pending satisfaction of liability.

Omanakuttan Pillai Vs the Joint Rto — Service and Employment | 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 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 26010 of 2014 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI KUMARACHANAZHIKATHU, NEENDAKARA P.O, KOLLAM 691 582.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.UDAYAKUMAR SREEDHARAN SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM 690 518.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O KOLLAM 690 518.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, NEENDAKARA P.O, KOLLAM 691 582.

¶13

BY SRI SHYSON P. MANGUZHA, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 26010 of 2014 (A)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 29.5.13.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 4.7.2014.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: N I L ---------------------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶26

--------------------------------------------------

¶27

W.P.(C).No.26010 of 2014

¶28

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2014.

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner admittedly is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 7D 2063. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner, demanding a sum of `53053/- towards the arrears of tax payable under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The contention is that the vehicle was on repair and was never used or ready to use.

¶31

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶32

After hearing both the sides and after going through the pleadings and prayers, this Court finds that no tenable ground has been raised in the writ petition to call for interference, so as to absolve the petitioner from the liability, so far as the petitioner concedes that he is the registered owner of the vehicle.

¶33

However, after considering the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to

¶34

¶35

W.P.C.No.26010 OF 2014

¶36

the present plight, the petitioner is permitted to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of 'four' equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 15^th of November, 2014, followed by similar instalments, to be effected on or before the 15^th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if any single default is committed with regard to the satisfaction of the entire outstanding liability as above, it will be open for the respondents to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump, by pursuing such steps from the stage where it stands now.

¶37

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶38

SD/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶39

Omanakuttan Pillai v. the Joint Rto

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omanakuttan Pillai v. the Joint Rto

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

Mary Jose Vs Rama Raja Prema Prasad

Giby Thomas Vs Executive Engineer

Tomy O.A Vs Authorised Officer

M.A Kareem Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

P.A George Xavier Vs State of Kerala

Supriya Bhai Vs the Kottayam District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.