The registered owner is liable for vehicle tax unless they formally notify the transfer of ownership to the authority, per statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner admittedly was the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL-03-C-3783. The petitioner claims that he sold the vehicle in the year 2000 to the 7th respondent herein, the agreement of which is exhibited as Ext.P1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the recovery proceedings initiated as per Ext.P14 for the motor vehicle tax due on the said vehicle from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2017.

2. It is to be noticed that, after sale of a motor vehicle, for effecting transfer of ownership, the transferor shall intimate the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is made, that factum of transfer in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, as per Section 50 (1)(a)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . Admittedly no such intimation has been given to the Registering Authority. The petitioner relies on an agreement, which, according to him, evidences the factum of transfer, to the 3rd respondent.

3. Transfer of a vehicle and handing over of valid possession by way of an agreement is an accepted practise, which is also legally permissible. Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 provides for levy of tax; and sub-section (3) provides that the registered owner or any person having possession or control over a motor vehicle shall be deemed to use or has kept such vehicle for use in the State. Hence, the official respondents are perfectly entitled to proceed against the registered owner as also the person who is in possession or control over the vehicle. If any dispute as to the possession or control of a vehicle is in existence between the parties, the same would have to be necessarily adjudicated before the appropriate civil forum. But that would not in any way affect the right of the Department to proceed against either of the aforesaid persons for satisfaction of tax liability.

4. It is the option of the authorities to proceed to seize the vehicle and sell for recovery of tax dues. That will also not preclude the authority from enquiring into who is in control of the vehicle and in proceeding against such person. It is also open to the authorities to proceed either against the registered owner or against the person in control of the vehicle, or even together since the liability to pay tax, under Section 3 (3) is; joint and several.

Hence, the proceedings now taken against the petitioner, the registered owner of the vehicle, cannot be faulted.

5. The petitioner also relies on an order of the State Human Rights Commission, produced at Exhibit P11. Therein, a direction was issued either to seize the autorickshaw or to cancel the registration and permit. There is also a direction that there should be proceedings taken to see that no tax dues are demanded or recovered from the petitioner after 2013-14.

6. This Court is of the opinion that without the petitioner pointing out where the autorickshaw is, there could be no seizure effected as per Exhibit P11. In such circumstances, if the petitioner points out the location of the autorickshaw and the person in whose possession the autorickshaw is existing, then the authorities could take action on that. But, that cannot absolve the petitioner, the registered owner, from the tax liability created by statute.

In the result, the writ petition would stand dismissed.