SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED Vs. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions have been filed by the same party, Sundram Finance Ltd. in respect of two different vehicles. The petitioner is carrying on the business of hire purchase financing in motor vehicles and other items. In the course of business, the petitioner financed certain amounts in respect of two vehicles bearing registration number INY 3461 and TNY 3569 repayable in thirty five monthly instalments commencing from 6th August, 1973 12th September, 1973 respectively. According to the petitioner, as on the date of filing of the Writ Petitions, a sum of Rs. 58, 985/ and Rs. 59, 080/- is payable under the hire purchase agreement. Since the hirer of the two vehicles committed default in the payment of the instalments due under the two respective hire purchase agreements, the petitioner exercised its right under the hire purchase agreement and seized the two vehicles on 26th August, 1974 and 18th July, 1974 respectively. The petitioner intimated the first respondent that the vehicles had been seized and that the vehicles have stopped plying on the routes. The petitioner also issued notices to the hirer and the guarantor on 4th September, 1974 and 7th August, 1974 respectively. The registration certificate and permits pertaining to the vehicles were also surrendered by the petitioner on 9th December, 1974 and the surrender of documents was acknowledged by the first respondent on 14th December, 1974. The petitioner thereafter applies to the first respondent on 3oth December, 1974 for the issue of tax clearance certificates in respect of the vehicles. The petitioner's applications for the issue of the said certificate were returned by the first respondent on the ground that the tax clearance certificates can be obtained only by the hirer and not by the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of its applications for the issue of the tax clearance certificates and has come to this Court for the issue of a direction to the first respondent to entertain the applications for the issue of the tax clearance certificates and for the grant of the same.

(2.) ON the facts of these cases, I am of the view that the first respondent is not justified in returning the applications of the petitioners for the issue of the tax clearance certificates on the ground that the permit-holder alone should apply for tax clearance certificates. Admittedly, the petitioner has got an interest in the vehicles and that it has in fact possession of the vehicles in pursuance of the hire purchase agreement. It also authorised to dispose of the vehicles under the hire purchase agreement. Therefore it is entitled to ask for the issue of a tax clearance certificates in respect of the vehicles in its own right and it is not correct to reject the applications of the petitioner for the issue of the tax clearance certificate on the ground that it is not the permit holder in respect of the vehicles.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that as the vehicles have stopped plying and stoppage reports have been sent and the relevant documents have been surrendered, there is no tax liability for the vehicles on or after 30th September, 1974 and the petitioner is not liable to pay tax subsequent to 31st December, 1974. If really the vehicles have been stopped plying on the routes and if the statutory requirements have been complied with by the petitioner before 31st December, 1974, as contended, then there cannot be any tax liability for these vehicles. But these are all matters which have to be considered by the first respondent while considering the applications for the issue of the tax clearance certificates.