A registered vehicle owner continues to be liable for tax until an official transfer of ownership is registered with authorities, as upheld by precedent.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by Ext.P9 revenue recovery notice requiring the petitioner to pay the motor vehicle tax arrears in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-67A/2157. The said vehicle is a bus, which stood in the name of the petitioner, but the petitioner had transferred the vehicle to the 7^th respondent on 26.08.2019. According to the petitioner, after execution of Ext.P1 agreement, the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that, the registration of vehicle is transferred in the name of the 7^th respondent. However, on 22.11.2022, the petitioner was served with a demand notice for an amount of Rs.76,500/- towards the arrears of the motor vehicle tax in respect of the said vehicle from

01.07.2021 to 31.03.2022.

2. According to the petitioner, upon approaching the 7^th respondent, he assured that the amount will be paid. However, later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 demand notice dated 31.07.2023 requiring the petitioner to pay an amount Rs.1,23,756/- towards the motor vehicle tax arrears. The petitioner had already remitted the said amount as per Ext.P4. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with another demand notice, i.e., Ext.P9, for an amount of Rs.2,80,556/-, which is for the subsequent period. Upon contacting the 7^th respondent, it was informed that the vehicle has already been transferred to the 8^th respondent. It was in these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“a. direct respondents 1 to 6 to proceed against the vehicle No.KL-67A/2157 which is now in the possession of the 8^th respondent for recovering the dues in respect of the road tax of vehicle mentioned above by proceeding against that vehicle by taking possession of the same from the 8^th respondent before proceeding against the petitioner by the issue of writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.

b. Quash Exhibit.P- 9 the revenue recovery notice from Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Kunnathur Taluk dated 03.06.2024 c. Petitioner also prays that this Honourable court may pleased to dispense with the translation of the vernacular documents produced in the vernacular language.”

3. A statement has been submitted by the learned Government Pleader, wherein, it is submitted that, as of now, an amount of Rs.2,80,500/- is due from the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2022 to 30.11.2023. It was further averred that, based on the direction issued by this Court on 11.11.2024 directing the Station House Officer concerned, the additional 10^th respondent, took steps to take custody of the vehicle from the 8^th respondent, and as part of the same, the said respondent visited the location where the vehicle was kept, in order to take it into custody. However, it was found that the vehicle was not in a running condition, and it was in such a state that moving it using a recovery vehicle may have caused further damage. Therefore, the same could not be complied with. It is also averred in the writ petition that, after Ext.P9 was received, the father of the petitioner had appeared and applied for G Form on 01.12.2023.

4. I have heard Adv.Krishna Raj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Reshmitha R. Chandran, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. As far as the liability of the petitioner, which is covered by Ext.P9 is concerned, the same cannot be disputed in view of the fact that, the petitioner is even now continuing as the registered owner of the vehicle. Of course, it is true that, there are some documents, which would indicate that, the petitioner transferred the said vehicle to the 7^th respondent as evidenced by Ext.P1. However, that by itself would not exonerate the petitioner from the liability. Unless a