Disposed

Abbas, v. the Motor Vehicles Taxation Officer Cum Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC22 May 2019WP(C)/8449/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue recovery notices in Kerala High Court alleging violation of natural justice due to lack of notice while determining tax liability. The court directed the authority to consider objections within four weeks and stayed coercive steps. Second and third respondents retained liberty to continue recovery if tax is determined by first respondent. No final disposal shown.

What did the court decide?

[null]

Abbas, Vs the Motor Vehicles Taxation Officer Cum… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2019 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 8449 of 2019

PETITIONER/S:

ABBAS,

AGED 45 YEARS

S/O. ABDULLA, KOTTAKUTH HOUSE, NELLIKUTH P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION OFFICER CUM REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

¶13

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM 676 505

¶14

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM 675 505

¶15

3 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR R.R (REVENUE RECOVERY) ERANAND TALUK, MALAPPURAM 676 522.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 8449/2019

¶20

-2-

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P4 revenue recovery

¶23

notices issued by the third respondent as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The issue arises under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The case of petitioner is that the petitioner through Ext.P5 requested the first respondent to consider the objections stated therein, which if are favourably considered would alter the amount payable by the petitioner. The petitioner further contends that the petitioner was not put on notice, the proceedings have been conducted behind the back of petitioner and therefore the conclusions now arrived are vitiated in law. Therefore, the petitioner prays for setting aside Exts.P3 and P4 revenue recovery notices.

¶24

The learned Government Pleader, adverting to

¶25

written instructions, contends that the ground of challenge that

¶26

the petitioner was not put on notice is factually untenable. The

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 8449/2019

¶28

-3-

¶29

petitioner was put on notice on 10.01.2018. One of the notices sent by the first respondent returned with the endorsement 'unclaimed'. Therefore, the tax determined is valid and tenable. She prays for dismissing the writ petition.

¶30

I have perused Exts.P5, P6 and P7. The petitioner through Ext.P5 has raised a few objections on the tax liability

¶31

now enforced through revenue recovery notices Exts.P3 and P4. Admittedly the order has been passed and the amount determined behind the back of the petitioner. This Court with a view to ensuring that the principles of natural justice are followed and that the petitioner is given opportunity to convince the authority on the quantum of tax liability, considers it appropriate to direct the first respondent consider Ext.P5 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from today and pass orders on the tax liability of petitioner. The coercive steps envisaged pursuant to Exts.P6 and P7 are

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 8449/2019

¶33

-4-

¶34

stayed for a period of four weeks. The second and third respondents are given liberty to continue with Exts.P6 and P7 and recover the amount as is determined by the first respondent pursuant to this order.

Sd/S.V.BHATTI JUDGE

jjj

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH ITS NO. P.ST 10/626/2004 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DAATED 1-1-2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE MOVABLE WITH ITS NO. RRC NO. 2018/2856/10 DATED 30-01-2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE IMMOVABLE WITH ITS NO. RRC NO. 2018/2856/10 DATED 30-01-2019

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 8449/2019

¶41

-5-

¶42

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2-22019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS WITH ITS NO. KL 13/N 6066 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-2-2019 IN WPC NO. 4257/2019.

Abbas, v. the Motor Vehicles Taxation Officer Cum Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abbas, v. the Motor Vehicles Taxation Officer Cum Regional Transport Officer

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

Asset Summit Suits Hotels(P) Ltd. Vs State Tax Officer (Luxury Tax)

Madhusoodanan P.P., Vs State Tax Officer

Sherin Hifab Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Intelligence Officer (I.B)

P.T.Sajeevan Vs the Welfare Fund Inspector

M/S.Teekay Agencies, Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Spl. Circle

Muhammed Ali K.N. Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Kerala Khadi Workers Welfare Fund Board