Disposed

Valsa v. the Motor Vehicles Taxation Officer

Kerala HC17 Jan 2019WP(C)/1389/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam disposed of a writ petition by the petitioner, a motor vehicle owner facing tax recovery. Without adjudicating merits, the court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the vehicle's scrapping status expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the vehicle's status and tax demand expeditiously.

Valsa Vs the Motor Vehicles Taxation Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1389 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

VALSA,AGED 50 YEARS W/O. SUNILKUMAR, 32/2936, KULATHINKAL, THAMMANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM 682 032.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION OFFICER CUM REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM 682 305

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

GP SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKEL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C). No. 1389 of 2019

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, a registered owner of a motor vehicle, claims that the vehicle remained unused for many years and later scrapped on its sale to a third party. Yet, faced with demand for recovery on motor vehicle tax, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Besides adverting to the merits, the petitioner's counsel has submitted that it will suffice if the respondent authority considers the petitioner's Ext.P3 representation.

¶20

In response, the Government Pleader assures the Court

¶21

that the first respondent will consider the petitioner's Ext.P3 representation, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶22

Under these circumstances, without adverting to the merits, I dispose of the writ petition, holding that the first respondent will consider the petitioner's Ext.P3 representation, expeditiously, in accordance with law .

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

JUDGE

das

-3-

W.P.(C). No. 1389 of 2019

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK OF THE VEHICLE WITH ITS NO. KL 9/C 8787

¶32

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE WITH ITS NO. RRC NO. 2018/15369/07 DATED 7.12.2018

¶33

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF MALAYALAM EXHIBIT P2.

¶34

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.1.2019

Valsa v. the Motor Vehicles Taxation Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valsa v. the Motor Vehicles Taxation 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

Leo Logistics Vs Union of India

Jobrun G Varghese Vs the Commissioner of State Goods and Service Tax Department

Husky Injection Molding Systems (India) Private Limited Vs the Commissioner of State Tax

Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Private Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

Mohammed Rafeeq.P.B., Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Trustpilot Trans and Trades Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala