NOBLE THOMAS Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , who was the writ petitioner before learned Single Judge, is before this Court aggrieved by the judgment of learned Singe Judge refusing to quash Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is the recovery proceedings initiated against petitioner for recovery of Motor Vehicle Tax due on TATA 407 Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.KL -04 -K -1168.

(2.) PETITIONER claims that he sold the vehicle to 4th respondent herein in the year 2007, as per agreement between parties exhibited as Ext.P1, therefore, he is not liable to pay any tax and the authorities could recover the tax as per Section 3(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (for short the Act) from the person who is in possession of the vehicle. Learned Single Judge, after referring to Section 3(3) of the Act was of the opinion that, it is open to the authorities to recover tax either from the registered owner or from the person who is in control of the vehicle. He further opined that, if at all any dispute regarding the possession of the vehicle exists between the parties, it has nothing to do with the department in collecting the tax. With these observations learned Judge opined that, it is open to the authorities to recover the tax amount as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us placing reliance on Section 9 of the Act and also a decision in N.P.R Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala ( : 2002(1)KLT 591). Section 9 of the Act reads as under: -

(3.) IN that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, appellant cannot seek protection under Section 9 of the Act or the decision relied upon by him. If at all there are dues on the vehicle to be paid to the financier, it is for the financier to decide how he recovers that money. If any proceedings were to be held against the registered owner in accordance with the procedure or the terms of agreement between the financier and the registered owner, it is also left open to the financier to take appropriate recourse. We are not considering such a situation in this case. We are considering a situation where legally the vehicle is not yet transferred to 4th respondent. Appellant is still the registered owner of the vehicle. Invoking jurisdiction of Section 3(3) of the Act, department had initiated recovery proceedings which is perfectly in consonance with the provisions of law.