Back
Kerala High Court
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
M.T.Kunji Mohammed - Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram - Respondent
Decided On : 02/01/2000
Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 - Liability of Registered Owner - Transfer of Ownership - Tax Liability
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged revenue recovery notices demanding payment of tax for a motor vehicle of which he is the registered holder. He claimed that the 4th respondent, to whom he had transferred the vehicle, is liable to pay the tax.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as the registered owner, is primarily liable to pay the tax on the vehicle. The liability does not cease even if ownership or possession is transferred, as per Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner, as the registered owner, could avoid tax liability by transferring ownership without informing the registering authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the registered owner's liability to pay tax does not cease by transferring ownership or possession, as mandated by sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act.
Final Decision: The O.P. was dismissed, and the petitioner's challenge to the revenue recovery notices was rejected.
Petitioner challenges Exts. P-2 and P-3 revenue recovery notices issued on him demanding payment of tax payable in terms of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 in respect of a motor vehicle of which he is the registered holder. The registration certificate is admittedly in his name, the petitioner concedes. But the petitioner submits based on an agreement that he had transferred the vehicle in favour of the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent has admitted such transfer and that he was in possession of that vehicle. In such circumstances, petitioner, relying on Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 submits that the 4th respondent is liable to pay the tax. Therefore, demand notices issued on him namely Exts. P-2 and P-3 cannot be enforced on him.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the R. C. holder of the vehicle concerned. Registration certificate is the primary document to denote who is the owner of the vehicle. The primary liability to pay tax on the vehicle is on such owner. Ofcourse, if the vehicle is in the possession of anybody else and if the owner does not pay it, the department or the tax recovery officer can proceed against that person as well. But the liability of the registered owner who had so transferred the ownership or possession of the vehicle to pay the tax does not cease at all by reason of such transfer of ownership or possession. It is statutorily made clear in sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the said Act.
3. If he had changed the ownership it was incumbent on him to intimate the registering authority and to bring about necessary changes. Admittedly, the petitioner had not attempted to effect such change. Therefore, the petitioner cannot avoid the tax liability in respect of the vehicle in question.
O.P. therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Petition dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
