Disposed

Baji Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2016WP(C)/3015/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery notices for motor vehicle tax after vehicle damage and Form G submission for exemption. Court kept notices in abeyance, directed hearing on evidence for exemption period, and noted new owner's liability for subsequent period.

What did the court decide?

Recovery notices kept in abeyance; petitioner directed to appear on 28.11.2016 to prove Form G application; subsequent liability addressed under Section 9.

Baji Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3015 of 2016 (B) ---------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BAJI JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,KOLARIKKAL HOUSE,JETTY ROAD, SOUTH CHITTOOR,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682027.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA SRI.JOSEPH KURIAN VALLAMATTAM SRI.K.H.ANSAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶11

2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT,TRANSTOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,TRIVANDRUM-695008.

¶12

3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & REGISTERING AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-68030.

¶13

4. BENNY, ALUKKARA HOUSE,PERUMBILLISSERRY,CHERPU.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-685110.

¶14

5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY), KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682830.

¶15

6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERENELLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE,SOUTH CHITTOOR.P.O, KOCHI-27. R1,2,3,5&6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.P.PRADEEP R4 BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 3015 of 2016 (B)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE FORCE TRAVELLER DATED 1.07.2011 REGISTERED UNDER THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶22

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT BEARING NO.P.CO.7/2705/2011 DATED 5.07.2011 VALID TILL 4.07.2016

¶23

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT FROM MOTOR VEHICLE CHECK POST GOVINDAPURAM BEARING NO.312/6156/2013 DATED 29.3-2013

¶24

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION AND G FORM DATED 05.04.2013

¶25

P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE G FORM DATED 5.04.2013

¶26

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF CONSENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY ON 6.12.2013

¶27

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 7.12.2013

¶28

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.12.2013 ISSUED BY M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA

¶29

P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 35 DATED 9/12/2013.

¶30

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.06.2015 SERVED UPON THE PETITIONER ONLY ON 21ST JANUARY,2016

¶31

P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.06.2015 SERVED UPON THE PETITIONER ONLY ON 21ST,JANUARY 2016

¶32

P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 1.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, DINDIGUL.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶39

W.P.(C).No.3015 of 2016

¶40

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

¶41

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2016

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

The petitioner challenges Exts.P8 and P8(a) by which steps had been taken by the revenue authorities to recover an amount of ₹1,32,600/- from the petitioner. As per Ext.P8, the liability is towards motor vehicle tax from 01.04.2013.

¶44

Petitioner submits that he was the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-07 BR-5810. The said vehicle sustained serious damages on account of an accident and it was entrusted to a workshop at Dindigul. Pursuant to the accident, petitioner submitted Form G to the registering authority seeking exemption from payment of motor vehicles tax from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. Ext.P4 is the letter dated 05.04.2013 along with which Form G has been submitted as Ext.P4(a). The Form had been acknowledged by the Regional Transport Officer on 05.04.2013. The petitioner submits that since the vehicle was totally damaged, the petitioner settled the matter with the Insurance Company and purchased the salvage which was later sold in favour of the 4^th respondent. It is therefore contended that with reference to the demand for the period up to 31.03.2014 it is covered by Form G and thereafter the liability is on the present owner of the property. It is stated that though the registration of the vehicle has not been changed in

¶45

W.P.(C).No.3015 of 2009

¶46

¶47

favour of the 4^th respondent, still being the person in possession of the vehicle he is under the obligation to pay tax.

¶48

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent wherein they admit the fact that they have received Form G. However when the matter was enquired to the Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul, verification report was not received from the said office. The petitioner was summoned for a personal hearing to explain his version, but he did not appear. Therefore, in the absence of any material, there is no reason to give any concession to the petitioner. Further it is submitted that the petitioner has not applied for clearance certificate for effecting transfer of ownership in favour of the 4^th respondent and he has not surrendered the RC for cancellation as per Section 56(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶49

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent inter alia stating that the vehicle could not be put to use and he is ready and willing to pay tax after 31.03.2014. However, the 4^th respondent had sought for change of category which is pending consideration and his liability to pay will be subject to a final decision taken in that regard.

¶50

The short question to be considered is whether the petitioner's liability to pay can be excluded under the factual circumstances. No doubt, when Form G has submitted, necessarily

¶51

W.P.(C).No.3015 of 2009

¶52

¶53

the concerned officer will have to conduct enquiry and ensure whether the petitioner is entitled for any exemption from payment of Motor Vehicle Tax. No such order had been passed so far. The petitioner relied upon the certificate issued by the Dindigul RTO as Ext.P9 to indicate that the vehicle was garaged during the relevant time and it had suffered serious damage.

¶54

According to the respondents though notice was issued to the petitioner for a personal hearing, he did not appear and therefore, a final decision could not be taken in the matter. Necessarily for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 since it is an admitted fact that Form G had been submitted by the petitioner, it is for the concerned Regional Transport Officer to consider and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner as well. Therefore in regard to the liability to pay tax for the said year, the liability can arise only after a final decision is taken in that regard.

¶55

As far as the subsequent liability is concerned, the provision contained under Section 9 will hold the field. Section 9 reads as under :

¶56

“ 9. Liability to payment of tax by persons succeeding to the ownership, possession or control

¶57

of motor vehicles.- (1) If the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before payment of the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the

¶58

W.P.(C).No.3015 of 2009

¶59

¶60

person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax.

¶61

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to affect the liability to pay the said tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle.”

¶62

There is no dispute about the statutory format as far as the liability of the registered owner is concerned. He is also liable if the liability cannot be fastened on the person in possession. In the case on hand, the 4^th respondent agrees that he had obtained transfer of the vehicle. Under such circumstances, for the period from 01.04.2014 necessarily the liability can be fastened on the 4^th respondent. However, if no recovery could be made from the 4^th respondent, it shall always be open for the concerned authority to rely upon Section 9(2) and take appropriate steps in the matter.

¶63

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, this writ petition is disposed of as under :

¶64

Exts.P8 and P8(a) shall be kept in abeyance for the time being.

¶65

The petitioner shall appear before the 3^rd respondent on 28.11.2016 and produce all necessary documents to prove the Form G application submitted by him which shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed, as expeditiously as possible. Recovery

¶66

W.P.(C).No.3015 of 2009

¶67

¶68

pursuant to Exts.P8 and P8(a) shall be subject to final orders.

¶69

In regard to the liability after 01.04.2014 it shall be open for the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶72

Baji Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baji Joseph 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

A. Shajahan Vs Sunil Chandran

Special Officer (Revenue) , K.S.E. Board Vs G.T.N.Textiles Ltd.

Alex Varghese Vs Recovery Officer Drt

Majitha M Vs Canara Bank

Chinju Vs the Authorised Officer, Syndicate Bank

M/S.Asma Rubber Products (Pvt) Ltd. Vs the Union of India