Disposed

Sudheesh.K.S v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC25 Nov 2019WA/2379/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal against a Single Judge's order granting installment facility for Motor Vehicle Tax arrears, clarifying that such facility does not bar the statutory remedy of appeal against a demand notice.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is disposed of subject to clarification that installment facility does not bar statutory appeal against a demand notice.

Sudheesh.K.S Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶5

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶6

WA.No.2379 OF 2019

¶7

AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2019 IN WP(C) 30429/2019(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

SUDHEESH.K.S S/O.SUDHAKARAN, KRISHNA VILASAM, UZHAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER UZHAVOOR-686 634.

¶13

2 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR), MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA-686 575.

¶14

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UZHAVOOR VILLAGE, UZHAVOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 634.

¶15

4 ABDU RAHIMAN, PANAYULLAKANDY HOUSE, IRINGATH P.O., PAYYOLI, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 523.

¶16

5 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SR.GP-SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

¶21

¶22

T.V. ANILKUMAR, JJ.

¶23

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

¶24

W.A. No. 2379 OF 2019

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2019

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Abdul Rehim, J.

¶29

Petitioner in W.P.(C) 30429/2019 is in appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge, dated 12^th November, 2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition.

¶30

Challenge raised in the writ petition was against the

¶31

revenue recovery steps initiated against the appellant for realization of the arrears of Motor Vehicle Tax, due for the period from 01.04.2017 onwards. Contention of the appellant seems to be that, during the relevant period the vehicle in question was not operating and was garaged with the 4^th respondent. The main relief sought for in the writ petition was to direct the 1^st respondent to depute an Officer to verify the fact regarding garaging of the vehicle with the 4^th respondent. Inter

¶32

alia, direction was sought to issue a revised demand notice, so

¶33

W.A. No.2379/2019 -:3:-

¶34

that the petitioner could avail the benefit of Ext.P4 Circular which envisages one time settlement of the arrears.

¶35

When the writ petition was argued before the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the petitioner, the relief sought for was confined only with respect to allowing installment facility to discharge the liabilities, which is specifically noticed in the judgment. With respect to the periods from 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2017 and from 01.04.2019 to 31.12.2019, the amounts due were 18,383/- and 44,124/-, respectively. The learned Single Judge had shown indulgence in granting installment facility by permitting payment of the entire liability in six equal successive monthly installments, commencing from 25.11.2019(today) onwards. It was stipulated that, in case of default committed in payment of any one of the installments, the benefit of the installment facility granted would be lost and the respondents will be at liberty to continue with coercive steps for recovery.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant, Adv. G. Hariharan

¶37

contended before us that, the revenue recovery steps initiated

¶38

-:4:-

¶39

W.A. No.2379/2019

¶40

was not preceded by an appropriate demand notice. It is pointed out that, during the pendency of the writ petition the 1^st respondent had issued a demand notice, dated 01.10.2019, requesting payment of a total amount of `2,94,000/- being the arrears due for the period from 01.05.2017 to 31.12.2019. Learned counsel pointed out that the appellant has got a statutory remedy of appeal against the said demand and that the appellant is intending to pursue such statutory remedy.

¶41

We make it clear that, the installment facility granted by the Single Judge through the judgment impugned herein, will not stand in the way of the appellant availing statutory remedy against any demand notice issued, to the extent admissible under law.

¶42

The writ appeal is disposed of subject to the above said clarification.

¶43

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE .

¶44

Sd/- T.V. ANILKUMAR, JUDGE .

¶45

ul/-

¶46

// True copy //

¶47

P.S. to Judge.

Sudheesh.K.S v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh.K.S v. the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahir.P Vs Kerala State Wakf Board

K.Rajeswaran Vs Sunil Barthwal

Julie Samuel Vs Shino Jacob

C.Abdu Vs Central Waqf Council

Valillapuzha Juma-at Palli Paripalana Committee Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

Shahul Hameed, Vs Pezhummoodu Puthan Palli Muslim Jama-Ath