Case Law Details
Thankamma Vs Taxation Officer (Kerala High Court)
The petitioner, was the registered owner of a heavy goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-19-7599. The petitioner had sold the said vehicle, on 01.07.2019, to one Mr. Noushad K.H. The vehicle was sold for the purpose of scrapping the same, but, later the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 demand notice by the respondent, for motor vehicle tax pertaining to the vehicle for the period from 01.07.2019 to 31.12.2019. In response to the said demand, Ext.P2 objection has been submitted by the petitioner pointing out that the vehicle is already sold to another person and therefore since the vehicle is not in her custody and she not liable to pay the tax. The petitioner also places reliance upon Ext.P3 circular No.31/89 dated 20.12.1989 issued by the Transport commissioner which deals with the procedure to be followed in cases were disputes arose between the persons as to the possession of the vehicle. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances seeking for a direction to consider Ext.P2 objection submitted by the petitioner.
After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that, since the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 objection as against Ext.P1, the same has to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.
In such circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent herein to consider Ext.P2, in the light of the guidelines prescribed by the government as per Ext.P3 circular and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the affected parties. It is ordered that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Untill such a decision is taken, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 as against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.
