M. ABOOSALI, S/O. ABDU REHIMAN, THAYALVALAPPU HOUSE, MOGRAL, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD, DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KASARAGOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges Exts.P4 and P5, demand notices issued requiring payment of the Motor Vehicles Tax due in respect of the contract carriage vehicles bearing registration Nos. KL -14/4567 and KL -14/7919. Earlier Exts.P1 and P2, demand notices were issued to the petitioner calling upon him to remit tax of Rs. 2,47,450/ - and Rs. 4,23,850/ - in respect of the aforesaid two vehicles. That was challenged in O.P. No. 4735/2002. That original petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing the second respondent to consider whether, the demand was in compliance with the directions of the Apex Court judgment in State of Kerala v. Aravind Ramakant ( : 1999(3) KLT 115).

(2.) IT was accordingly that the matter was reconsidered and Exts.P4 and P5 were issued. In Ext.P4, Rs. 65,625/ - is directed to be remitted towards Motor Vehicles Tax for the period 01.04.1995 to 10.12.1995 in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL -14/4567. Similarly in Ext.P5, the petitioner asked to remit Rs. 1,07,625/ - for the period 1.10.1994 to 10.12.1995 in respect of the vehicle No. KL -14/7919. The contentions raised by the petitioner is that the liability has been quantified without affording him an opportunity of hearing as directed in Ext.P3 judgment. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that notices were issued and that the petitioner's son acknowledged the notice on 19.04.2008 as per Ext.R2(e). Therefore, the case of the petitioner that the tax was quantified in violation of the directions of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment, is factually incorrect. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner sought an installment facility to pay the amount demanded by Exts.P4 and P5. Taking notice of this submission, I direct that the petitioner will be permitted to pay the amount due in six equal monthly installments. The first installment will be paid on or before 30.11.2012 and the subsequent installments will be paid on or before the last working day of every succeeding month. Subject to payment as above, the coercive action will be deferred and in case of default, the respondents will be free to continue the recovery action already initiated.