SUSAN RAJAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the registered owner of the stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-8/F-3852, which was sold to the third respondent on the strength of Ext.P1 agreement dated 17/12/2006, which in turn was subsequently sold to the fourth respondent, who had purchased another vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/W-2452 from somebody else and operated the same in the name of the petitioner. It is in respect of the latter vehicle, that the tax is stated as in arrears, which is sought to be satisfied by the petitioner by issuing Ext.P2 demand notice dated 20/07/2011.

(2.) ON receipt of Ext.P2, the petitioner pointed out the actual facts and figures as borne by Ext.P3. Thereupon, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 notice dated 14/09/2011 asking him to appear for personal hearing scheduled on the relevant date. Though the petitioner appeared before the concerned authority and the matter was heard, nothing transpired thereafter. The petitioner has supplemented the factual particulars by submitting Ext.P5 on 25/10/2011, which is also pending consideration. It is without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings that the petitioner is confronted with coercive steps as per Ext.P6 notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, which in turn is under challenge.