Kerala High Court
WP(C)/7310/2008 of P.P.POULOSE Vs DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,ERNAKULAM on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 7310 of 2008 (T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- P.P.POULOSE, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALANNATTIL HOUSE, REVIEW BUILDING, KURISADY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 7310 of 2008 (T)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:-----------
P.P.POULOSE, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALANNATTIL HOUSE, REVIEW BUILDING, KURISADY KAVALA, NALANCHIRA, TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADVS.SMT.JEENA JOSEPH
SRI.G.D.PANICKER
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.
2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA.
3. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), MUVATTUPUZHA.
R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.A.MOHAMMAD SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AS
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1:COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PROPRIETOR OF KURLA MOTOR SPARE-PART COMPANY DATED 10/11/2004.MOTOR SPARE-PART COMPANY DATED 10/11/2004.
EXT.P2:COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.57/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORETHE 1ST RESPONDENT.THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3:COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/3/2005 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL.RESPONDENT IN APPEAL.
EXT.P4:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/5/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5:COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/9/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RDRESPONDENT DATED 21/12/2007. RESPONDENT DATED 21/12/2007.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R2(A):COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 6/2/2004 GIVEN BY THE PLANT ENGINEER OF PAN INDIA ENGINEERING LTD.ENGINEER OF PAN INDIA ENGINEERING LTD.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC,J
--------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.7310 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The controversy in this writ petition is in relation to the recovery of tax in respect of the vehicle bearingregistration No.KEE 8724. According to the petitioner, heused the vehicle in Kerala till 1992 and also paid tax for theperiod up to 31.3.1992. He says that thereafter he took thevehicle to his work site in Maharashtra where the vehiclewas used for one year. It is also stated that in 1993 hesold the vehicle to a scrap dealer, who has issued Ext.P1certificate confirming the sale. However, Motor Vehicle Taxfor the period 01.01.2000 to 30.09.2003 was demanded.Against that demand, the petitioner filed an appeal beforethe first respondent. In view of Ext.P1 certificate referredto above, the appeal was allowed in the following terms:
Considering the above, I, the Dy.Transport Commissioner, CZII, the Zonal Appellate Authority hereby allow the appealsubject to verification of service verificationand scrap.
2. In pursuance to the above, the secondrespondent issued Exts.P4 and P5 requesting his counterpart in the State of Maharashtra to conduct a detailedenquiry regarding the alleged dismantling of the vehicleand to submit a report. The report was not received. Inthe meanwhile, Revenue Recovery proceedings wereinitiated against the petitioner by Exts.P6 and P7 forrecovering the tax due. It is therefore, the writ petitionis filed.
3. While the petitioner contended that at any rate,the recovery proceedings are premature, the learnedGovernment pleader contended that on the one hand, thepetitioner contends that the vehicle was sold to the scrapdealer in 1993, the petitioner himself filed G forms for theperiod up to 1999. It is also the case of the learnedGovernment Pleader that the petitioner did not apply for W.P.(C).No.7310 of 2008
cancellation of the registration. In such circumstances, according to the learned Government Pleader, thepetitioner is liable to pay the tax and hence the RevenueRecovery proceedings are perfectly legal.
4. However, when tax for the period 01.01.2000 to30.09.2003 was demanded from the petitioner, hedisputed the liability and filed an appeal, which resulted inExt.P3 order. By that order, the appeal was allowedsubject to verification of service verification and the claimthat the vehicle was scrapped.It is in pursuance to theappellate authority's order that Exts.P4 and P5communications were issued by the second respondent.Response to those communications is still awaited. It iswhile so that Revenue recovery proceedings were initiatedagainst the petitioner. This, in my view, is premature. Inthe light of the directions in Ext.P3 appellate order, theliability could be fastened against the petitioner only if thereport received from the Maharashtra authorities is W.P.(C).No.7310 of 2008
against the claim of the petitioner. That report is still awaited. In such a situation, the recovery proceedings atthis stage could not have been initiated.
Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated againstthe petitioner as per Exts.P6 and P7 notices will bedeferred and will be proceeded against if the reportsobtained in pursuance to Exts.P3, P4 and P5 are adverseto the petitioner.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
ln
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE