High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-09-26Writ Petition dismissed.

P.C. Mohammed Haji v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 33838 of 2015 (D)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Shaffique, J.
Judgment Date: 2016-09-26
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. The petitioner is liable to pay motor vehicle tax for the period 1.1.2011 onwards (amounting to Rs. 3,54,060/-) and may recover the same amount from the fourth respondent if he can establish a transfer and the transferee bears the liability under Section 9(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The court held that the liability is joint and several, and Sebastian C. (supra) does not assist the petitioner in avoiding the obligation. Prior orders under W.P.(C) Nos. 9354 of 2013 and 24682 of 2014 remain binding, and in the absence of compliance, no further concession is warranted.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.C. MOHAMMED HAJI, S/O.HASSANKUTTY HAJI, 63 YEARS, POOYICHARATHINGAL HOUSE, VAVAD AMSOM DESOM, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE.

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA represented by the Secretary to Government, Motor Vehicles Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, RTO OFFICE, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE-673 572
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, RTO OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 572
MOHAMMED BASHEER. P.P., S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, PUTHENPEEDIKA HOUSE, EENGAPPUZHA, PERUMBALLI. P.O., MALAPPURAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN-658 573
THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-658 573
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAVAD VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-658 573

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M. Shaju Purushothaman
• Sri K.S. Rajesh
• Sri T.K. Karunakaran

Counsels for Respondents

• Govt. Pleader Sri V.K. Shamsudheen

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition challenges a motor vehicle tax demand against the registered owner of a vehicle, asserting that the vehicle KL-11-N-4885 was transferred to the fourth respondent by an agreement, and that tax liability should follow the transferee. The petitioner relies on the principle articulated in Sebastian C. v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KHC 950 (DB)) that tax recovery can be directed at the transferee or by attaching the vehicle, and only if such steps prove futile. The respondents counter that there is no material before the Motor Vehicle Department to prove transfer, and the vehicle is under a hire-purchase arrangement with the Kerala Financial Corporation; hence, proceedings were canceled and reissued. The court notes the petitioner’s earlier petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 9354 of 2013 and 24682 of 2014) and the final orders therein, and finds that relief cannot be granted anew, given that the registered owner is jointly and severally liable under Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, with sub-section (2) clarifying that transfer does not absolve the owner. The court distinguishes Sebastian C. and emphasizes the petitioner’s ongoing obligation. Ultimately, the writ petition is dismissed, with the petitioner directed to pay the due tax (Rs. 3,54,060 from 1.1.2011) and to seek recovery against the transferee only if legally feasible.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, Section 9(1)Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, Section 9(2)Revenue Recovery Act, Section 7Revenue Recovery Act, Section 34

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that, as the registered owner, he transferred the vehicle KL-11-N-4885 to the 4th respondent by an agreement; tax became due after transfer; he relies on Sebastian C. v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KHC 950 (DB)) to argue tax should be recovered from the transferee or by attaching the vehicle, and only if such steps are futile should recovery be directed at him. He asserts documents (P1–P7) evidencing transfer and seeks relief/idle tax exemptions previously granted in earlier writ petitions; he argues the hire-purchase arrangement and prior procedural lapses undermine the current demand.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend there is no material before the MVD to prove transfer; the vehicle is under hire-purchase with the Kerala Financial Corporation; proceedings were canceled on 3.6.2015 and fresh proceedings issued. The counter-affidavit notes petitions W.P.(C) Nos. 9354 of 2013 and 24682 of 2014 and their final outcomes; it is asserted that the earlier directions for installment payments were not complied with, and the petitioner cannot obtain relief in the present petition since two prior petitions had become final.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sebastian C. v. State of Kerala and others	2010 (1) KHC 950 (DB)	Distinguished	The court distinguished Sebastian C., noting that the liability under Section 9 is joint and several and that the transferee/possession scenario does not relieve the original owner; Sebastian C. does not apply to the present facts.
W.P.(C) No.9354 of 2013	W.P.(C) No. 9354 of 2013	Mentioned Only	Referenced to discuss prior directions and non-compliance, not presented as binding authority.
W.P.(C) No.24682 of 2014	W.P.(C) No. 24682 of 2014	Mentioned Only	Mentioned as part of prior litigation and final orders; not treated as binding precedent.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.C. Mohammed Haji v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/4TH ASWINA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 33838 of 2015 (D)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **P.C. MOHAMMED HAJI, S/O.HASSANKUTTY HAJI, 63 YEARS, POOYICHARATHINGAL HOUSE, VAVAD AMSOM DESOM, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADVS.SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, SRI.K.S.RAJESH, SRI.T.K.KARUNAKARAN.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **-------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, RTO OFFICE, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE-673 572.** **3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, RTO OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 572.** **4. MOHAMMED BASHEER. P.P., S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, PUTHENPEEDIKA HOUSE, EENGAPPUZHA, PERUMBALLI. P.O., MALAPPURAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN-658 573.** **5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-658 573.** **6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAVAD VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-658 573.** **R1 TO R3, R5 & R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## rs. **WP(C).No. 33838 of 2015 (D)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** - **P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT SHOWING THE TRANSFER OF VEHICLE TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15-09-2010.** - **P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDL. REGISTERING AUTHORITY, KODUVALLY DATED 03-06-2015.** - **P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 19-03-2015 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25-05-2015 ISSUED BY KODUVALLY POLICE STATION.** - **P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY DATED 25-04-2015.** - **P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.24682/2014 DATED 30-10-2014.** - **P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.9354/2013 DATED 04-04-2013.** - **P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR 02-09-907 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01-01-2011 TO 31-03-2013 DATED 01-04-2013.** - **P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE UNDER SECTIONS 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 20-03-2015.** - **P9ATHE TRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE UNDER SECTIONS 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 20-03-2015.** - **P10THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08/12/2015.** - **P11THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08/05/2015.** - **P12TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED UNDER RTI ACT DATED 11/07/2016.** - **P13TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION ISSUED BY KFC, KOZHIKODE DATED 06/11/2010.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.** ## **-------------------------------------** W.P.(C) No.33838 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26[th] day of September, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition has been filed _inter alia_ contending that the petitioner being a registered owner, had transferred vehicle registration No.KL-11-N-4885 in the name of the fourth respondent by virtue of an agreement. The motor vehicle tax became due after the vehicle was transferred in favour of the fourth respondent. Petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of this Court in **Sebastian C. v. State of Kerala and others [2010 (1) KHC 950 (DB)** , there is an obligation cast upon the respondents to recover the tax from the transferee or by attaching and selling the vehicle for which tax is payable and unless the said steps have become futile, the recovery could be made from the petitioner. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent _inter alia_ submitting that no materials had been W.P.(C) No.33838 of 2015 -2- produced before the Motor Vehicle Department to show that the vehicle had been transferred in favour of the fourth respondent and no transfer had been effected so far. The vehicle has a hire purchase agreement with the Kerala Financial Corporation and therefore, the proceedings taken against the vehicle was cancelled on 3.6.2015 by issuing a fresh proceeding. 3. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner had approached earlier before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.24682 of 2014. When the said matter came up for hearing, it was noticed that the petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition as W.P.(C) No.9354 of 2013, which was disposed of on 4.4.2013. Taking note of the fact that the disposal of the said writ petition was not brought to the notice of this Court, by judgment dated 30.10.2014, W.P.(C) No.24682 of 2014 was dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Kerala State Mediation and Reconciliation Centre within one month. Petitioner submits that W.P.(C) No.9354 of 2013 was W.P.(C) No.33838 of 2015 -3- filed in the name of the petitioner on 3.4.2013 pursuant to the demand notice dated 1.4.2013 issued by the RTO, Kozhikode. It is stated that the fourth respondent had procured the demand notice without the knowledge of the petitioner and even before serving the same on the petitioner. 4. But, it is relevant to notice that the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24682 of 2014 had become final. In the said case also, the request of the petitioner was to direct the respondent to endorse the exemption of vehicle tax from stage carriage rate and endorsement of idle tax in the R.C.book of the vehicle for the period from 1.4.2010 and for other reliefs. 5. Having regard to the fact that the said writ petition had already been dismissed, the question to be considered is whether the petitioner can be granted any relief as sought for in the present writ petition. Presently, the petitioner challenges Ext.P9 notice of attachment dated 20.3.2015 issued by the Revenue Recovery Authorities. Apparently, the demand had been issued on the ground that there is motor vehicle tax W.P.(C) No.33838 of 2015 -4- dues. It is brought to the notice of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9354 of 2013 that the petitioner was permitted to remit the motor vehicle tax in three equal monthly installments, which he did not comply. 6. At present, it is stated that the present demand is for the period from 1.1.2011 onwards and the amount claimed is Rs.3,54,060/-. Apparently, the direction issued in W.P.(C) No.9354 of 2013 has not been complied with and it is without complying with the said direction that subsequent W.P.(C) No.24682 of 2014 has been filed. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the filing of the writ petition, I do not think that this Court should go into such aspects of the matter in the present proceedings. If any fraud had been committed by the fourth respondent in the matter relating to filing successive writ petition before this Court in the name of the petitioner without the petitioner knowing about it, the remedy of the petitioner to take appropriate steps before a competent W.P.(C) No.33838 of 2015 -5- court/authority. As far as this Court is concerned, two writ petitions had been filed in the name of the petitioner and orders had been passed, which had become final. 6. As far as the law in this aspect is concerned, it is well settled that the registered owner is jointly liable to pay motor vehicle tax. Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, of course takes care of the instance where the vehicle is transferred in favour of another person or another person is in possession of the vehicle. However, sub-section (2) clearly indicates that the person who was transferred the ownership is not affected by the liability to pay the tax in any manner. In other words, the liability is always joint and several. In the said circumstances, the judgment in _Sebastian C. (supra)_ does not serve the petitioner's cause. In other words, he is also jointly and severally liable along with the person in possession. As far as the present case is concerned, since already the petitioner had approached this Court seeking appropriate W.P.(C) No.33838 of 2015 -6- reliefs, I do not think that this Court will be justified in issuing any further direction. The petitioner is not entitled for any further concession in the matter, though the demand for motor vehicle taxation relates to a subsequent period as well. Petitioner has to pay the amount and recover the same from the fourth respondent, if he could legally sustain his contention that the vehicle has already been transferred and the liability to pay the tax is on the person in possession as provided under Section 9 (1) of the Act. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. **Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE** Scl/26.09.2016