D.O.F:06/09/2019
D.O.O:19/07/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.175/2019
Dated this, the 19th day of July 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Yusuf. T aged 35 years
S/o Abdul Rahiman
R/at Kudavalappil House : Complainant
Putariyadukkam, Thekkil Post and Village
Kasaragod Taluk and District
And
- The Village Officer
Thekkil Village, Chattanchal
Kasaragod
- G2 Section Clerk
District Collector Office : Opposite Parties
Civil Station Kasaragod
- Regional Transport Officer
Civil Station, Vidyanagar, Kasaragod
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The facts of the case is as follows:-
The complainant is the registered owner of Tipper lorry KL-14 H 8705. Vehicle was seized by Tahasildar Kasaragod on 26/08/2011 for violation of Kerala Protection of River Banks and regulation of Removal of Sand Act and since then vehicle is in the custody of Revenue department. Despite payment of Rs. 25,000/- vehicle is not released. But finally vehicle is ordered to be confiscated as per order dated 01/04/2012 by district Collector, Kasaragod. complainant is directed to remit Rs. 54340/- towards road tax for the period 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2018 on failure threatened with Revenue Recovery proceedings. He is not liable to pay any amount since vehicle is in the custody of Revenue Department during the period.
2. The complainant filed IA 205/2019 for an interim order restraining Opposite Party No:1 is proceeding with RR proceedings to realize the tax of the vehicle KL-14H 8705 in the circumstances of the case. IA is allowed.
3. The Opposite Party No: 1 to 3 filed counter stating that recovery steps are taken against complainant as per law, so much amount is in arrears, and hence demand is genuine and relief is granted, it will delay recovery of the amount due to government.
4. The complainant and Opposite Parties did not adduce any oral evidence. Complainant produced documents marked as Ext A1 to A5. Ext A1 is the copy receipt for remitting compounding fee in sand case, Ext A2 is proceedings demanding road tax, Ext A3 is the copy of communication, Ext A4 is copy of letter by complainant and Ext A5 is the copy of notice issued by Opposite Party No: 3.
5. As per case of complainant and objection raised by Opposite Party following points arise for consideration in this case.
a) Whether complainant is liable to pay arrears of road tax for the period from 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2018 relating to vehicle KL-14 H 8705 when the vehicle is in the custody of revenue Department from 28/06/2011 onwards.
b) Whether there is any deficiency in service of Opposite Parties and whether Opposite Parties liable to pay compensation?
c) For what reliefs?
6. The levy of tax under section 3 of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. In terms of section 4(1), the liability to pay tax under sections 3(1) and 9 is on the registered owner or person having possession or control of the motor vehicle. As far as the complainant is concerned, admittedly he is the registered owner. But contention is that he had ceased to have possession by revenue department on 26/08/2011.
7. The claim for exemption from tax under the Act could be maintained in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of the Act, read with notification SRO 878/1975 dated 29/09/1975 and it was not necessary for the claimant to comply with the procedure contemplated under section 5 of the Act, read with rule of the rules.
8. Notification SRO No: 878/1975 dated, 29/09/1975. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 22 of the Kerala Motor vehicles Taxation ordinance. (Ordinance No-7 of 1975) and in supersession of Notification No(6) 18998/63/PW/TB2 dated June 28th 1963 published as SRO.No. 609/63 KG extra No 90 dated 20/06/1963, the Government of Kerala being satisfied that if is necessary in the public interest, so to do hereby except the following classes of motor vehicle from the payment of tax, for the period during which such vehicles are in such custody.
9. Insofar as the claim of the complainant for exemption under section 22 of the Act read with SRO 878/1975, there was no requirement to follow the procedural requirements of section 5 read with rule 10.
10. Exemption should not be denied for the period during which vehicle was in the custody of police or other authorities.
11. Here demands were made against the petitioner for motor vehicles tax dues for the period during which the vehicles were in custody of Revenue authorities, pursuant to a seizure of the vehicles in connection with alleged illegal transportation of river sand in contravention of the provisions of Kerala River Bank protection and regulation of removal of Sand Act.
12. The Honourable High of Kerala as per judgement dated 29 they may 2014 in WP(c) No 29977of 2009 (N) in shijil.V. V/s the Joint Regional Transport Officer(Taxation) and another held that, In such circumstances following principles laid down by a Division Bench of this court in Satheesh’s case (Supra) it has to be concluded that , the claim for exemption from payment of tax for the period during which the petitioner’s goods carriage is under the custody of police is squarely covered by SRO No. 878/1975, as the seizure of the petitioners vehicle on 01/09/2007 is for reasons other than non- payment of tax.
13. In Satheesh V Joint Regional Transport Officer (2009 (1) KLT 420), a Division Bench of this court held that, when the seizure of vehicle is for reasons other than non-payment of tax the claim for exemption from payment of tax for the period during which such vehicle is under the custody of police or other authority, covered by SRO No. 878/1975 is not in any manner negative by the dictum laid on by the full bench of this court in Regional Transport Officer Vs Abdulrahiman (200) (1) KLT 613). Paragraphs 8, and 11 and 12 of the judgement reads thus:-
“Before referring to the judgement of the full Bench, it will only be appropriate to refer to the principal contention raised by the appellant that he is entitled to be exempted from payment of tax under the Act by virtue of SRO No.878/1975 item No. 27 of the said notification which exempted those vehicles which are in the custody of the police or other authorities for reasons other than for payment of tax”.
14. In the said circumstances in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to hold that Revenue recovery proceedings relating the vehicle tax for vehicle KL-14 H 8705 during the period when vehicle is in the custody of revenue authorities during period covered by demand is un-enforceable and not sustainable in law and hence hereby set aside. Complainant is found not liable to pay during the period and hence Issue No.1 is found against Opposite Party. So also it is held that Opposite Party demanded the tax bonafide and in good faith and in truth tax is due but exempted from order of Government, and hence claim for costs and compensation claimed is hereby rejected.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part by setting aside all the proceedings in pursuant to the demand write No.C1/59/2018 dated 07/02/2018. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of receipt
A2- Proceeding demanding road tax
A3- copy of communication
A4- copy of letter by complainant
A5- Memo
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
