Dismissed

Sunny Antony v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 May 2016WP(C)/4129/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed this writ petition challenging demand notices for motor vehicle tax. The petitioner, who initially sought an instalment facility, later applied for adjustment of amounts paid under a One Time Settlement Scheme but failed to comply with the scheme's terms and submit representations. The Court held there was no merit in the petitioner's petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the directing order against the respondent authorities was denied.

Sunny Antony Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2016/29TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4129 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SUNNY ANTONY, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, THOPPIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SECRETARY TO TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶11

2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, II FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THYKKADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 014.

¶12

3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, R.T.O. OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA- 688 001.

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), AMBALAPPUZHA -688 001.

¶14

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LIJU V. STEPHEN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 4129 of 2016 (M)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶21

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11/12/2014

¶22

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9/2/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶23

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6/1/2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

¶24

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.91/2014/TRANS DATED 29/12/2014

¶25

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 5/1/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶26

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18/3/2015 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶27

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/4/2015 IN WPC NO.6224/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶28

P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/12/2015 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.4129 of 2016

¶35

Dated this the 19^th day of May 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to quash Exts.P1 and P9. Ext.P1 dated 28/04/2014 is a notice under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,34,916/- towards Motor Vehicle Tax. On receipt of Ext.P1, petitioner approached the Government and got an instalment facility. Petitioner paid the first instalment of Rs.74,099/- as per Ext.P2 receipt dated 11/12/2014. In the meantime, One Time Settlement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme') was offered by the Government in terms with Ext.P5 Government order dated 29/12/2014. Petitioner, having remitted Rs.70,475/-, requested for adjusting the amount towards OTS scheme. This was not permitted and the petitioner therefore approached this Court by filing W.P.C.No.6224/2015 and by judgment dated 06/04/2015, this Court permitted the petitioner to approach the competent authority before whom he has submitted his representation and the authority was directed to consider the same and pass

¶38

W.P.C.No.4129/2016

¶39

¶40

appropriate orders. By Ext.P9 order dated 30/12/2015, the Regional Transport Officer called upon the petitioner to remit Rs.70,334/- i.e. 20% of the amount outstanding, on or before 31/12/2015. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that only one day's time was granted to pay the said amount and since the petitioner could not avail of the said facility, this writ petition is filed.

¶41

Statement has been filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent wherein it is stated that when revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, petitioner filed W.P.C.No. 6224/2015 and as per the directions issued in the judgment, notices were issued on 22/02/2014, 19/03/2014, 03/03/2015, 04/03/2015 and 22/07/2015, but the petitioner did not appear. Later, the petitioner approached the Government for instalment facility which was allowed by the Government in terms of Ext.P4. Balance amount due as on 31/12/2015 is Rs.3,51,670/-. Respondent also denied the further allegations raised by the petitioner.

¶42

Having regard to the facts and the materials made available on record clearly indicate that when the scheme is

¶43

W.P.C.No.4129/2016

¶44

¶45

offered by the Government, the parties will have to comply with the terms of the scheme in accordance with its letter and spirit. Petitioner apparently wanted an adjustment to be made on the amount he had deposited, though the scheme has come into effect subsequently. If the petitioner had remitted 20% of the outstanding amount as on date when the scheme had come into force, in compliance with the terms of the scheme, authorities could have as well accepted the said amount and closed the matter. But the petitioner waited till the last date for adjustment of the amount and even filed W.P.C.No.6224/2015 before this Court seeking for such adjustment. It is apparent that such an adjustment is not possible under the scheme. Even after disposal of W.P.C.No.6224/2015 on 06/04/2014, petitioner did not pay the amount. According to the petitioner, he was waiting for a reply from the Government. In fact, no such reply was required at all. It was the obligation of the petitioner to comply with the terms of the scheme. In this case, petitioner wanted more facility than what is provided under the scheme. It is submitted that merely for the reason that petitioner was granted one days' time, I do not think that the respondent authorities have committed any error in

¶46

W.P.C.No.4129/2016

¶47

¶48

offering the benefit of the scheme to the petitioner.

¶49

In the result, I do not find any ground to interfere with Exts.P1 or P9. Respondent authorities are entitled to recover any amount after adjusting the amount, if any, paid by the petitioner.

¶50

This writ petition is hence dismissed.

¶51

(sd/-)

¶52

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶53

jsr

¶54

True Copy PA to Judge

Sunny Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Antony 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Rafi Vs Assistant Engineer, Kerala Electricity Board

M/S.Thomas Chacko and Sons(Defunct) Vs the Inspecting Assistnat Commissioner

A.B.Textiles Vs the State of Kerala

B.Sainu Vs Punjab National Bank

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Thankam Amma Vs the Vadakaras Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.