T.T.THOMAS, THAZHATHUNDIYIL Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 6A-2127. Permit of the vehicle is also in the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he sold the vehicle to the 4th respondent by Ext.P1 agreement dated 29.5.2004. In spite of the transfer of the vehicle, Ext.P2 demand notice dated 27.6.2008 was issued demanding tax of Rs.47,350.00, in respect of the vehicle for the period 1.10.2006 to 31.3.2007. Petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected by Ext.P4 order. Revision filed by him was also rejected by Ext.P6. Revenue recovery notice has now been issued as per Ext.P7 and the amount of tax demanded is Rs.3,46,452.00. It is challenging Ext.P7, and the demand for tax from him, the writ petition is filed.

(2.) COUNTER affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent shows that the demand made by Ext.P7 is for realising the tax due in respect of the vehicle for the period 1.10.2006 to 30.9.2008. Although the petitioner has argued disputing his liability to pay the tax, fact remains that even as on today, he is still the registered owner of the vehicle and the permit is also in his name.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , petitioner is the registered owner. If that be so, he cannot be absolved of the liability to pay the motor vehicles tax. Although I considered the possibility of directing the respondents to proceed against the vehicle, I do not think that it will be a feasible option for the reason that even the petitioner is unaware of the where abouts of the vehicle. In such a situation, no useful purpose will be served by requiring the respondents to proceed against the vehicle which is untraceable. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot avoid the liability.