By: Sri. Mohandasan K., President
Complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The complainant purchased a 2009 model second hand Innova G4 vehicle with Delhi Registration No. DL IN 3377. The vehicle particulars were submitted before the first opposite party for re registration of the vehicle and for that purpose the value of the vehicle was fixed as Rs.7,85,121/-. The opposite party directed the complainant to remit Rs.38,523/- towards tax and the same was remitted by the complainant on 02/02/2016 along with vehicle details including NOC. The complainant also submitted a notary attested affidavit undertaking all the future liability in respect of the vehicle. The opposite party duly verified the vehicle and on completing the procedure the opposite party allotted new registration No. as KL 55 T 3004 to the vehicle. But thereafter one year on 19/01/2017 the opposite party office demanded the complainant to remit additional tax as Rs.4,377/- and the complainant remitted the same on 19/01/2017.
2. The complainant received a demand notice from the third opposite party, the village officer, Marakkara Village. As per the demand notice the complainant was again directed to remit Rs.23,372/- towards additional tax. The third opposite party informed the complainant that if he fails to remit the demanded amount the Taluk officer of Tirur has instructed the third opposite party to attach the assets of the complainant. The complainant said to the third opposite party that he had remitted a tax amount of Rs.42,900/-. The complainant asked that why he is asked to remit tax again and again. The Reply of the third opposite party was to approach the first opposite party office. On approaching the first opposite party by the complainant there was no proper reply from the first opposite party. The complainant submitted that the vehicle is an old model of 2009 and it has already crossed 1,56,820 KMS. The complainant also stated that he was not served with demand notice. Then the first opposite party issued a demand notice directly on 03/07/2019.
3. Thereafter the complainant approached deputy transport commissioner of middle region at Thrissur with an appeal and after hearing it was stated that as per invoice CST actual fright , insurance was not realized as part of tax and another three vehicles were considered along with invoice for assessing tax and so it was revealed the value of the similar vehicle KL 55P 5340 of 2009 model assessed as Rs.10,20,000/- and considering the same the complainant is liable to remit an additional amount of Rs.18,300/-, considering the already remitted amount of Rs.42,900/-. The complainant is surprised of finding of the deputy transport commissioner. The complainant submit that the other three vehicles stated in the invoice are not purchased for the purpose of the complainant and also there is no basis for the finding of the commissioner. The assessment and valuation of the vehicle of the complainant i.e. KL 55 T 3004 cannot be assessed on the basis of market value of other vehicles. The complainant submits that the assessed amount of Rs.7,85,121/- for his vehicle itself is an exorbitant amount. Since the vehicles has got more than 12 years oldness the assessment of Rs.7,85,121/- itself is an exorbitant amount and that can be verified from the physical verification of the vehicle itself. The complainant submit that the said amount was admitted by the complainant on advice of the first opposite party itself. The complainant duly remitted the tax amount as assessed by the first opposite party.
4. Hence the complainant submits that if any action is proceeded as per the demand notice, it will adversely affect the complainant. The complainant suffered a lot due to the defective service of the first opposite party. The complainant alleges the act of the opposite parties illegal and against the principal of natural justice. Hence, the prayer of the complainant is that to stop the proceedings by the third opposite party as per the demand notice issued and also direct the first and second opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-as compensation along with cost of Rs.50,000/-.
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the first opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
6. The first opposite party admitted that the complainant had approached the opposite party on 07/12/2015 along with vehicle number DL 01 N 3377 which has got Delhi registration for re-registration and at that time the complainant produced documents stating the price of the vehicle as Rs.7,85,121/- and based on the value, tax was assessed as Rs.38,523/ and the complainant remitted the same. The complainant also submitted notary attested affidavit undertaking the future liability and the vehicle was allotted new registration No. KL 55 T 3004.
7. During 2015 -16 period the middle regional transport commissioner had found that there is low taxation done for the vehicles re-registered which are brought from other states. On that basis an amount of Rs.4,377/- was realized from the complainant on 19/01/2017. It was further entrusted by the transport commissioner to find out the loss sustained to the department as per order dated 25/07/2017.
8. The opposite party submitted that as per the finance bill introduced on 01/04/2007 section 2(e) of motor vehicle taxation law prescribed value of the vehicle brought from outside of states and the criteria for fixing tax at the time of re registration of the vehicle. The provision suggests that either to consider the value of purchase invoice and if it is not available consider the vehicle registered during the relevant period and thus the tax is to be assessed. The first opposite party assessed loss of Rs.2,32,18,006/- for 911 vehicles as per the direction. The third opposite party issued notice to the vehicle owners of 911 as part of revenue recovery. The first opposite party office assessed the value of the vehicle of complainant as matter of internal audit basing the value of vehicle No. KL 48A 6262 and accordingly directed the complainant to remit Rs.23,372/- as tax. The first opposite party issued demand notice to the complainant on 04/10/2018 but the notice was returned on 25/10/2018. Thereafter the revenue recovery procedure was prescribed.
9. On the basis of revenue recovery proceedings, the complainant approached deputy transport commissioner at Thrissur with an appeal and after considering the submissions and documents of the complainant the transport Commissioner considered the difference in the specification of the vehicle owned by the complainant and the vehicle considered for assessments and thus the tax amount was revised as Rs.18,300/-. The opposite party submitted that the complainant is liable to remit the amount and the complaint is filed without any merit. The proceedings initiated against the complainant is only to realize the loss sustained to the state. As per the procedures initiated against 911 vehicle owners, almost 70% of responsible persons remitted the amount. But due to none collection of entire amount, the employees are restrained from receiving retirement benefits. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint.
10. The complainant filed affidavit and documents. The documents marked as Ext. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is photo copy of certificate of registration of vehicle No. KL 55 T 3004. Ext.A2 is copy of tax demand notice issued by RTO office, Tirur dated 04/10/2018. Ext.A3 is copy of order of Deputy Transport Commissioner Middle region dated 29/09/2019. Ext.A4 is copy of revenue recovery notice dated 04/06/2019 issued by Deputy Thahsildar Tirur Taluk. Ext. A5 is letter issued from Transport Commissionerate dated 23/03/2020. The opposite party did not file affidavit and documents. Hence the opposite parties set exparte.
Heard the complainant and perused the documents.
11. The contention of the opposite party is that there was mistake in assessment of value of the vehicle of the complainant and so the notice issued for the realization of the tax amount as per due verification and evaluation of the vehicle. But the opposite party did not produce any document to establish the revised tax amount which is the issue to be considered in the complaint. On the other hand the complainant filed affidavit and produced documents to prove his case. IT is evident that the complainant remitted the tax first time Rs.38,523/-. Thereafter one year the opposite party further demanded an amount of Rs.4,377/- as additional tax. The complainant remitted the same amount also. But thereafter the opposite party issued further notice for realization of Rs.23,372/- and on consideration of appeal by the regional transport commissioner it was revised as Rs.18,300/-. But the perusal of document there is no supportive evidence has been produced by the opposite party before the Commission. In the absence of documentary evidence as well as proof affidavit from the side of opposite party, we are inclined to accept the contention of the complainant. So we find that the complainant already remitted due tax amount and there is no reason to hold that the complainant is liable to pay further tax amount as demanded by the opposite parties.
12. The defective service from the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 caused to issue demand notice Ext. A2 and thereafter Ext. A3. So, we find that the complainant is not liable to pay any further amount as tax in respect of vehicle No. KL 55 T 3004 (LMV- motor Cab). The opposite party failed to establish the entitlement of arrear amount. Hence, we allow this complaint as follows:
The opposite party 1 to 3 are restrained from collecting arrear tax amount from the complainant, in respect of vehicle No. KL 55 T 3004 (LMV – Motor Cab).
No cost and compensation.
Dated this 7th day of February, 2023.
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1: Photo copy of certificate of registration of vehicle No. KL 55 T 3004.
Ext.A2: Copy of tax demand notice issued by RTO office, Tirur dated 04/10/2018.
Ext A3: Copy of order of Deputy Transport Commissioner Middle region dated
29/09/2019.
Ext A4: copy of revenue recovery notice dated 04/06/2019 issued by Deputy
Tahsildar Tirur Taluk.
Ext A5: letter issued from Transport Commissionerate dated 23/03/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan K., President
Preethi Sivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
