ARIF MUNEWAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER JAYANAGAR BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri c. Narasimhachar and Sri b. e. kotian, learned government Advocate on behalf of respondents.

(2.) THE short point involved in this case is who is liable to pay the arrears of tax under the motor vehicle taxation Act, 1959 in a case where the vehicle has been transferred by the owner and intimation thereof had been sent to the authorities concerned. This is the short question that is involved. The facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. Cad 1797 matador seater. According to the petitioner's case, he had been paying taxes in respect of this vehicle and paid it upto 1-3-1987. As the petitioner's vehicle developed some mechanical problem, he sold the vehicle on 29-5-1987 to respondent 3 for a sum of Rs. 38,900/- and delivered the possession thereof on the very same day to the purchaser i. e. , to the 3rd respondent and had taken sale receipt and the delivery note from the 3rd respondent, copy of which the petitioner has annexed as annexures-a and b. Petitioner's further case is that he had sent a letter in writing by registered a. d. post to respondent 1 informing the respondent 1 that the vehicle had been sold to 3rd respondent and he enclosed the delivery note. The authority was requested to make the necessary entries in the official record. Petitioner's case is that the postal a. d. reveal that the letter was served on respondent 1 on June 8, 1987. But the respondent 1 did not take any action thereon making entry in the register. Petitioner's further case is that the 2nd respondent issued a demand notice on 1-7-1993 demanding an amount of Rs. 16,860/- as arrears of tax for the period from 1-3-1987 to 30-4-1989 in No. Mv 153 of 1989-90. That notice had not been served by the petitioner. Petitioner's further case is that the matter was referred for the taking of recovery proceedings and in pursuance of recovery certificate, the deputy commissioner, Bangalore district, started recovery proceedings to recover the amount due. From the petitioner and issued a notice dated 1-7-1993. Petitioner has challenged that notice. Petitioner's case is that he applied for the certified copy of proceedings and the copy was not supplied. Petitioner has challenged this notice dated 1-7-1993 (annexure-e to the writ petition) and sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the said recovery notice.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri c. narasimhachar and Sri b. e. kotian, learned government advocate.