Dismissed

Mini Jofelix v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Feb 2024WP(C)/5806/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging revenue recovery proceedings for motor vehicle tax. The bench held that as the petitioner remained the registered owner with the authorities, her liability for motor vehicle tax did not cease upon an alleged but unrecorded sale of the vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition fails; discharge applicant from liability for motor vehicle tax in respect of the registered vehicle.

Mini Jofelix Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5806 OF 2012

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

MINI JOFELIX AGED 34 YEARS, 1/71(216), KOZHIPPARA, VADAKARAPATHY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD-678001.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR RR CHITTUR PALAKKAD-678101.

¶13

4 SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. 2ND FLOOR, SUNSHINE COMPLEX, T.B.ROAD, OPPOSITE ALUKKAS JEWELLERY, PALAKKAD - 678001.

¶14

5 B.RAJESH 15 BHARATHIDASAN STREET SULESHWARANPATTY, POLLACHI TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT - 642006.

¶15

6 SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. RATHINAM COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, 79, RAJA MAIL ROAD, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, PIN-642001.

¶16

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANUROOPA JAYADEVAN SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.VIPIN VARGHESE

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI. DHEERAJ A S -GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P (C) No.5806/2012

-2-

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this court challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against her for recovery of motor vehicle tax due in respect of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11A-5531. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had sold the vehicle to the 5^th respondent on 0309-2007. It is submitted that the petitioner had availed a loan in respect of the vehicle with the 4^th respondent and the hypothecation was also cancelled on 21-09-2007. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.P2. It is submitted that the 5^th respondent had availed a loan from the 6^th respondent and since the 5^th respondent had not repaid amounts due to the 6^th respondent in time the vehicle was repossessed by the 6^th respondent and subsequently sold. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.P3 arbitration proceedings between respondents 5 and 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the demand for payment of motor vehicle tax from the petitioner in respect of the above vehicle is bad as the vehicle was sold to the 5^th respondent in September 2007 itself.

¶24

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent where it is specifically stated that as far as the records maintained by the Motor Vehicle Department are concerned there is nothing to show that the vehicle had been transferred by the petitioner to the 5^th respondent as averred in the writ petition and as per the records of the Motor Vehicle Department the

¶25

W.P (C) No.5806/2012

¶26

-3-

¶27

petitioner continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 6, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of any reliefs. Going by the records the petitioner continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-11A-5531 and transfer of ownership from the petitioner to the 5^th respondent has not been duly intimated to the Motor Vehicle Department. The liability to pay the motor vehicle tax is the registered owner of the vehicle. Though a person in possession is also liable for tax, the liability of the registered owner does not cease. Since the petitioner continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle for the relevant period, the petitioner cannot challenge the demand for payment of motor vehicle tax.

¶29

Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶31

AMG

Mini Jofelix v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mini Jofelix 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.M.Manoj Vs Forest Range Officer

Binu Suresh Vs Special Sale Officer

Maj Hospital Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

Team Thai Ashique Enterprises Formerly Vs Harshal M.P

G.Vikraman Nair Vs State of Kerala

Saneesh a. Vs Stte of Kerala