T K VIBHURAJ Vs. E M JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is preferred by the appellant in W.A. No. 1933 of 2004 stating that some of the points urged by him were not considered by the Division Bench while disposing of the appeal. Review petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice Ext. P2 dated 26 8 1998 issued to him demanding motor vehicle tax of Rs. 48,450/- in respect of vehicle number KL 4A-2314 for the period from 1-1-1997 to 30-9-1998. According to the review petitioner, he had transferred possession of the vehicle to the first respondent on 29-3-1996 and the fact of transfer was intimated to the second respondent on 7-9-1998. Challenge was repelled by the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 19600 of 2000 which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1933 of 2004 holding that the review petitioner is liable to pay the tax demanded since he continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle.

(2.) Sri C.S. Manu, counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that a conjoint reading of Section 3 and Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, would show that transferor of the vehicle is not liable to pay tax which fell due after the transfer of the ownership and possession. Counsel submitted that the presumption under the proviso to Section 3 of the Act is rebuttable and the petitioner as per Ext. P2 has proved that he has intimated the transfer of the vehicle to the transferring authority and thus rebutted the presumption of ownership of the vehicle.

(3.) Sri Georgekutty Mathew. Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that there is no reason to review the judgment since all the aspects of the matter were considered by the Bench. In any view of the matter. Government Pleader submitted that the point raised is covered by various decisions of this Court. Counsel referred to the unreported judgments of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1179 of 1994, W.A. No. 2417 of 2006, W.A. No. 41 of 2006 and also various other decisions.