Partly allowed

P.A George Xavier v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 Oct 2014WP(C)/26978/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that the petitioner, as the registered owner of a dismantled vehicle, cannot evade tax liability without proving prior permission or surrender of documents under Section 55(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The balance tax liability was ordered to be paid in four instalments while coercive proceedings were kept in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Balance tax liability to be cleared in four equal monthly instalments; coercive proceedings suspended pending payment.

P.A George Xavier Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | 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.26978 of 2014 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.A GEORGE XAVIER,MANAGING PARTNER, NTA TRANSPORTS HINA HOUSE, NTA CHAMBERS,PERUMANOOR JETTY ROAD, WELLINGTON ISLAND,COCHIN-3, RESIDING AT PALLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NAZARETH,KOCHI-682002.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.T.V.VINU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,KOCHI-682030.

¶12

3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),KOCHI TALUK,KOCHI-682001.

¶13

4. VILLAGE OFFICER,THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE OFFICE, THOPPUMPADY,KOCHI-682006.

¶14

5. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB-REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MATTANCHERRY,KOCHI-682005.

¶15

BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No.26978 of 2014 (V)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1:TRUE PRINT OUT OF THE REGISTRATION DETAILS OF THE VEHICLE (KL-07-E-3879).

¶22

EXT.P2:TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.A2-1639/2014 DATED 14-8-2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P3:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY M/S.OLD AUTO PARTS, PATTIMATTOM.

¶24

EXT.P4:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(C) No.26978 of 2014

¶33

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

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL-07-E-3879. The admitted case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner had dismantled the vehicle in the year 2011. But it is contended that, prior to dismantling the vehicle, the petitioner had intimated the position to the 5^th respondent, in terms of Section 55(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the originals of all the documents such as RC Book, Certificate of Fitness, Transport Permit etc. were surrendered. In spite of this, the petitioner has now been mulcted with liability to the tune of Rs.88,620/- (Rupees Eighty thousand six hundred and twenty only) as per Ext.P2 demand notice, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶36

The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that, absolutely no permission for dismantling the vehicle was sought for and no such permission was ever granted to the petitioner. It is also stated that, the petitioner had not

¶37

W.P.(C) No.26978 of 2014

¶38

¶39

surrendered the originals of RC Book and such other documents before the Departmental Authorities.

¶40

On going through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that, absolutely no documents have been produced from the part of the petitioner, to show that the petitioner had sought for permission to dismantle the vehicle before the same was effected. So also, no document has been produced by the petitioner as to the surrendering of the RC Book, Certificate of Fitness, Transport Permit etc. before the 5^th respondent, as contended.

¶41

In the said circumstances, this Court finds that, the petitioner cannot evade the liability, being the registered owner of the vehicle, as there is no obscurity with regard to the provision of law, under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.

¶42

When the matter came up for consideration on 16.10.2014, the petitioner was required to satisfy a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only), which is stated as complied with. In the said circumstances, the balance liability flowing from Ext.P2 shall be satisfied forthwith. However, considering the persuasive submission made by the learned

¶43

W.P.(C) No.26978 of 2014

¶44

¶45

counsel, the petitioner is granted the benefit of instalments. The balance liability shall be cleared by the petitioner by way of 'four' equal monthly instalments, the first of it shall be effected on or before the 15^th of November, 2014, followed by similar installments, to be effected on or before the 15^th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 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 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.

¶46

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the respondents, for further steps.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

P.A George Xavier v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.A George Xavier v. State of Kerala

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

Omanakuttan Pillai Vs the Joint Rto

M.A Kareem Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

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