THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a contract carriage operator and the registered owner of a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-16-7574. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P8 and P9 demand notices issued to him for realising the motor vehicle tax arrears in respect of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-16-7574 owned by him. According to the petitioner, the vehicle has already been dismantled and, therefore, he is not liable to pay the tax. It is also contended that, even prior to the period pertaining to which the demand of tax as per the impugned notices was made, the petitioner had transferred the vehicle and, therefore, on that ground also, he is not liable to pay the tax.

2. A counter affidavit has already been filed by the 1st respondent, controverting the averments contained in the writ petition and opposing the reliefs sought for.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. It is discernible from the records that, when recovery proceedings were initiated on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3444 of 2017. The contention raised by the petitioner in the said writ petition was that the vehicle had already been sold to the 2nd respondent therein and, therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay the motor vehicle tax in respect of the period after the vehicle was sold. However, the said issue was considered by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment rendered in the aforesaid writ petition, wherein, it was categorically observed that, the fact that the transfer was effected in favour of another person, cannot be a reason to exonerate the petitioner from the liability to pay the motor vehicle tax, in view of the fact that the petitioner had not intimated such transfer to the registering authority and had not effected transfer of registration in the name of the purchaser. Therefore, the challenge raised against the demand notices issued to the petitioner at that point of time was found to be unsustainable and the writ petition was dismissed, but granting the petitioner, the facility to clear the liability in ten monthly instalments.

5. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition, on the ground that he subsequently came to know, upon enquiry, that the vehicle had been dismantled and, to substantiate the same, Ext.P7 judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.23555 of 2017 has been produced. According to the petitioner, a crime was registered in connection with the said vehicle and, in W.P.(C) No.23555 of 2017, which dealt with the investigation of the aforesaid crime, it was reported by the police that the vehicle could not be traced, as it had already been dismantled. According to the petitioner, the vehicle referred to in Ext.P7 is the very same vehicle in respect of which the recovery proceedings have been initiated.

6. Even assuming that the vehicle referred to in Ext.P7 is the very same vehicle, under no circumstances can that be a reason for the petitioner to claim exemption from liability, since admittedly no intimation was given to the authorities concerned regarding the dismantling of the vehicle, nor were any steps taken to cancel the registration. It is not the case of the petitioner that any proceedings were initiated by him to have the registration cancelled on that account.

7. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has been contesting the matter throughout, he can be granted an instalment facility to discharge the liability.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner to settle the liability in twelve monthly instalments. The petitioner shall approach the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of cop