The registered owner is liable for motor vehicle tax unless the ownership transfer is properly documented as per statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was the owner of Goods Carrier registered in the year 1991, bearing registration No.KL-05-A-4077. The petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue recovery proceedings that are initiated against the petitioner, for motor vehicle tax payable in respect of the said vehicle.

2. According to the petitioner, the vehicle is already sold on 20.08.2002 to the 4^th respondent and he also placed reliance upon Ext.P1 agreement for sale, to substantiate the same. According to the petitioner, despite the fact that the vehicle was purchased by the 4^th respondent, he failed to transfer the registration of the vehicle in his name and thus the petitioner is even now continuing as the registered owner as per the records maintained by the Motor Vehicle Authorities. Now, the petitioner was served with a notice, demanding the motor vehicle tax arrears. Earlier, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 extending the petitioner an opportunity to settle the motor vehicle tax arrears for an amount of Rs.6,287/- as part of one-time settlement scheme existing at the relevant time. However, the petitioner could not avail the said remedy, as the petitioner was not present in the country at the relevant time. Now, as per Ext.P3 and Ext.P4, recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for realising an amount of Rs.1,32,486/-. It is also submitted that the petitioner had already submitted complaints against the 4^th respondent for not transferring the vehicle into his name after purchasing the same, which is now pending consideration before the Station House Officer, Ranni.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. As far as the liability of the petitioner to pay the motor vehicle tax is concerned, he cannot be exonerated from the same, as even now he continues to be the registered owner. The mere fact that the petitioner had executed an agreement for sale with the 4^th respondent, by itself, cannot be a reason to get exoneration from the said liability, as the said issue is already covered against the petitioner as per the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in T.K Vibhuraj v. E.M Joseph & Others [2007 (1) KLT 853] . In the said judgment, it was categorically observed by this Court that, unless the registered owner submits necessary documents as prescribed for effecting transfer of vehicle and gets the registration transferred from his name, he has to be held responsible to pay the motor vehicle tax. In the light of the above legal proposition as laid down by this Court in the said decision, the petitioner cannot be exonerated from the liability. However, the petitioner can be granted a reasonable opportunity to pay the amount in instalments.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to permit the amount demanded as per Ext.P3 to be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall become due on 10^th day of April 2026 and the remaining instalment shall become due on the 10^th day of succeeding months. In case of default in making any of the said instalments, this facility shall stand cancelled. In such an event, it shall be open to the respondents to realise the same from the petitioner in lump sum. It is clarified that, this will not preclude the petitioner from pursuing his remedies against the 4^th respondent or the person who is in possession of the vehicle. It is further ordered that, upon the petitioner submitting necessary documents for transferring the vehicle, before the 2^nd respondent, the same shall be acted upon, so as to enable the petitioner to get exonerated from the liability in future. It is clarified that, the amounts, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be given due credit.

Sd/-