JOY ABRAHAM Vs. SALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court through the above writ petition being aggrieved by the demand of Motor Vehicle tax made on him for the period from 01.10.1996 to 31.03.2001 and 01.04.2001 to 31.12.2003. It would appear that during the pendency of the writ petition, the tax for the period from 01.10.1996 to 31.03.2001 was already paid. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he had sold his vehicle to the 1st respondent on 16.10.1995 and, thereafter, the vehicle was in the possession and ownership of the 1st respondent. He would also state that he had given an intimation to the 2nd respondent, of the fact of transfer of the vehicle but, despite the said intimation, the respondents were insisting on a payment of tax for the period subsequent to the date of transfer, from him instead of proceeding against the 1st respondent to whom the vehicle was sold. Exts. P6 and P7 demand notices issued to him by the 2nd respondent are impugned in the writ petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent wherein, the details of the steps taken by the 3rd respondent to trace out the vehicle that was said to be transferred are narrated. It is also pointed out that when steps were taken to make enquiries with the purchaser of the vehicle it was understood that he had since sold the vehicle to some other person and there had been subsequent transactions of sale of the said vehicle as well. It is pointed out that insofar as the registered owner of the vehicle continued to be the petitioner, notwithstanding the sale stated to have been effected by him, the proceedings for recovery of tax were also continued against the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Sri. P.P. Jacob, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.