The registered owner of a vehicle is liable for motor vehicle tax until possession is taken by a financier, after which the financier assumes liability for any outstanding tax.

JUDGMENT :

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.

The petitioner is the registered owner of a contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-46G-3339 and he is aggrieved by the demand of motor vehicle tax for the said vehicle. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition are as follows:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or commanding the 1st respondent to take steps for realisation of Motor Vehicle Tax arrears on the vehicle mentioned in Exhibit.P3 viz. vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-46G-3339 from the 3rd respondent following the dictum laid down in the matter of NPR Finance Ltd Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2002(1) KLT 591 and also taking note of the provisions of Section 9 of the MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION ACT .

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or commanding the 1st respondent to proceed against the vehicle mentioned in Exhibit.P3 for realization of tax arrears due on the said vehicle.

(iii) Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents

And

(iv) To pass such orders or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The vehicle referred to above, was purchased by the petitioner after availing a credit facility from the 3^rd respondent- financier. According to the petitioner, due to various reasons, including the lockdown declared by the Government with effect from 24.03.2020 owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not profitably operate the said vehicle and it resulted in defaults in repayment to the 3^rd respondent financier. According to the petitioner, as a consequence of the same, the financier had taken possession of the vehicle forcefully on 25.02.2022 from the petitioner. While taking possession of the vehicle, the original registration certificate of the vehicle along with the original permit which were kept inside the vehicle, were also taken by the financier. Even though complaints were submitted by the petitioner before the police, it evoked no positive response.

3. Later, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 notice by the financier, intimating that the vehicle was sold to a third person for a sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/ on 31.05.2022 and after adjusting the said amount towards the liability of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.16,47,985/- was demanded as the balance amount outstanding. An objection was submitted by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent against such transfer as per Ext.P2 and acting upon Ext.P2, the 1^st respondent blacklisted the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the tax for the vehicle was paid only till 31.03.2020 and the fitness certificate expired on 20.10.2022. As the petitioner apprehended that the tax liability would be mulcted upon the petitioner, despite the fact that the vehicle was taken possession by the 3rd respondent financier, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the reliefs referred to above.

4. A counter affidavit was submitted by the 3rd respondent denying the contention of the petitioner that they had taken possession of the vehicle forcefully and they relied upon the letter of surrender issued by the petitioner. They also averred that the sale of the vehicle was conducted after the vehicle was surrendered by the petitioner. The liability to pay the tax was also denied by the 3^rd respondent.

5. I have heard Sri.V.R.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Mohammed Rafiq, Le