ASWATHY KUMAR Vs. REGISTERING AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court, with respect to the tax demand, made by the 1st respondent, on two contract carriage vehicles, bearing registration No.KL 9 U 9650 and KL 9 U 7197; as also the proceedings for sale of the said vehicle, conducted by the 2nd respondent. The admitted facts are that, both the vehicles were originally purchased by the 4th respondent, who was the registered owner, after availing loan from the 3rd respondent. The loan was defaulted and both the vehicles were taken possession of, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity "SARFAESI Act") by the 2nd respondent on 18.04.2013. As per Ext.P1, auction was conducted on an, as is where is basis, in which auction, the petitioner participated and bid successfully. On 31.08.2013 the sale was confirmed in the name of the petitioner and the sale certificates were issued as evidenced by Ext.P2 series. The petitioner's travails began on such purchase.

(2.) The Registering Authority refused to accept the sale certificates, issued by the 3rd respondent, on the ground that the financier should first transfer the vehicle in its name. The financier-the 3rd respondent, then made two applications with respect to both the vehicles before the Registering Authority. The petitioner was before this Court in W.P(C) No.23129/2013 seeking consideration of such applications, which was allowed by judgment dated 12.09.2013. The applications were considered and as is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, with respect to KL 9 U7197, the registration was transferred in the name of the 3rd respondent-financier with effect from 18.04.2013 and with respect to the other vehicle, the registration was transferred, with effect from 05.09.2013. The separate dates for the two vehicles is neither explained nor relevant to our purpose.

(3.) Even after that, the petitioner was not able to take possession of the vehicle, from the godown, in which the 2nd respondent had parked it for reason of the transfer being not effected in the Registration Certificate. Admittedly, there were tax dues even from the time when the original registered owner, the 4th respondent was in possession of the vehicle. The petitioner, hence came to this Court contending that the earlier registered owner had filed 'G' forms for tax exemption, in respect of both the vehicles. This Court hence directed consideration of the same as also the resultant exemption, claimed by the petitioner. The said claim was rejected by Ext.P5, which is assailed herein.