C SEBASTIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that appellant is liable to pay arrears of motor vehicle tax in respect of a Tempo Traveller bearing registration No.KL-01/C-1497 for the period from 1.7.1996 to 2.2.1999. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, Standing Counsel appearing for the financier-4th respondent and the Government Pleader for the other respondents.

(2.) The vehicle was purchased by the appellant under hire purchase arrangement with the additional-4th respondent herein. When appellant defaulted payment of hire charges, vehicle was admittedly repossessed by the 4th respondent on 17.12.1997. As on the date of repossession by the financier, the vehicle was already in arrears of tax for the period commencing from 1.7.1996 onwards. Admittedly the 2 financier did not care to clear the arrears of tax or even file G Form for the period the vehicle was retained by them. Even though vehicle was stated to be sold by the financier to another person, it is not known whether the vehicle was put on road or whether the RC was changed from the appellant to the financier and in turn from the financier to the purchaser. All what stands proved is that the vehicle stands dismantled on 2.2.1999 which means that vehicle subject to exemption if any granted based on Form G furnished, would have been liable for payment of tax upto 31st January, 1999. The learned Single Judge held that since the appellant being registered owner has not filed Form G for exemption prescribed under Rule 5 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, is liable to pay the tax.

(3.) During hearing counsel for the appellant contended that appellant was disabled from filing Form G because he could not have furnished the particulars required to be given in Form G such as place of garage, probable date of reuse etc., because vehicle was under the control of the 4th respondent. Counsel for the 4th respondent contended that the vehicle was retained until sold by them only because appellant kept on offering payment which he never did. He further contended that 4th respondent has suffered loss on account of failure of the appellant to remit the hire charges and over and above if they are held to be liable for payment of arrears of tax, the same will cause heavy hardship to the 4th respondent.