Allowed

Vinod.v, v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC12 Sept 2023WP(C)/17798/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging a tax demand notice issued without an opportunity of hearing. The Court set aside the notice and remanded the matter to the Joint Regional Transport Officer to pass a fresh order following due procedure. The Court did not address the specific subject of cheque dishonour or monetary value in the reasoning.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Exhibit P-3 demand notice set aside and matter remanded to 1st respondent for fresh order with hearing.

Vinod.v, Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 21ST BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 17798 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

VINOD. V,
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. VISWAMBARAN,
RESIDING AT ALAMPALLY HOUSE, PILAPUZHA ,
HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690514.

¶7

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

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690502.

¶10

2THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695014, PIN – 695014.

¶11

3STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, PIN – 695001.

¶12

BY ADV.
 SMT. RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN – GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 17798 OF 2023

¶15

¶16

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶17

W.P.(C) No.17798 of 2023

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2023

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging Exhibit P-3 demand notice issued by the 1^st respondent without following the procedure contemplated under Section 26 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act.

¶21

Ms. Reshmita Ramachandran, Learned Counsel for the respondents fairly submits that no opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 26 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act was afforded to the petitioner before passing Exhibit P-3 impugned order.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid stand on behalf of the State, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned Exhibit P-3 is hereby set aside and matter is remanded back to the 1^st respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer for passing fresh order in accordance with the procedure contemplated under

¶23

WP(C) NO. 17798 OF 2023

¶24

¶25

Section 26 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act within a

¶26

period of one month. The petitioner is directed to appear before

¶27

the 1^st respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer on 28.09.2023

¶28

for hearing.

¶29

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶30

Svn

¶31

WP(C) NO. 17798 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17798/2023

¶34

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-29T-1246 IS PRODUCED

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX TOKEN DATED 01.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-29T-1246 EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF RS.22,860/-IS PRODUCED

¶37

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEMANDING PAYMENT OF RS.41,026/- AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS PRODUCED

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.TN-28BJ-4691 (OLD NO.KL-29T-1246) AFTER EFFECTING CHANGE OF ADDRESS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF RTO, NAMAKKAL (NORTH) ON 18.04.2023 IS PRODUCED

Vinod.v, v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod.v, v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

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

M/S.a.S.Jewellers, Vs Joint Commissioner of Customs(Preventive)

Beena.v, Vs Chothyakadavil Ebenezer Orphanage

M/S. Nitta Gelatin India Limited, Vs the Joint Commissioner of Customs.

M.N.Vinitha, Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Malini, Vs the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds), *(Corrected)

Irshad Mancheri, Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)