A.R.T. Leasing Ltd. vs Addl. Registering Authority

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point to be decided in this case is whether the financier is liable to pay motor vehicle tax relating to the period before the seizure of the vehicle by him.

It is submitted by the petitioner that it is a company carrying on the business of financing of automobiles on hire purchase basis. It advanced amounts to purchase a goods vehicle KL-4/41 to one Mr. N.A. Ayyappan. He defaulted to pay the amounts and therefore the petitioner seized the vehicle on 25.6.1999 and thereafter it was garaged at the premises of the petitioner company. The said fact was intimated by Ext. P1 dated 4.11.1999 by the petitioner to the respondent. On the application made by the petitioner, a fresh registration certificate was issued in its name on 16.11.1999. But arrears of tax for the period from 6798 to 12/99 have been demanded from the petitioner and the said liability has been endorsed in the R.C. Book. The petitioner challenges the said demand or rather the endorsement made in the R.C. regarding liability.

The counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Sundaram Finance and Others, . According to the petitioner, it is liable to pay the tax only for the period it has possession of the vehicle. According to it, the period during which the vehicle was in the custody of the hirer, it has no liability. The learned Government Pleader relying on the relevant statutory provisions seriously disputes the proposition urged by the counsel for the petitioner.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax from July, 1999 onwards. The dispute relates to the period from June, 1998 to June, 1999. The relevant statutory provisions are Sections 9 and 13 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Section 9 reads as follows:

"9. Liability to payment of tax by persons succeeding to the ownership, possession or control of motor vehicles-

(1) If the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before payment of the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle, shall be liable to pay the said tax.

(2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to affect the liability to pay the said tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle."

A plain reading of the above said Section will show that if the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid, the person who is in possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax. It is not in dispute that tax remains unpaid in relation to the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the person who has possession or control over the vehicle now. Therefore, it is liable to pay the tax which remains unpaid by virtue of the operation of Section 9(1). In the absence of any challenge to the said Section, the petitioner is bound by it.

Apart from that, the vehicle in question can be seized and sold in auction, even if the same is out of control of the person liable to pay the tax. This is evident from S.13 which reads as follows:

Amounts recoverable as arrear of land revenue: -

(1) Any amount due under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be recoverable in the same manner as an arrear of public revenue due on land.

(2) The motor vehicle in respect of which any amount is due or its accessories may be distrained and sold in pursuance of Sub-section (1), whether or not such vehicle or accessories is or are in the possession or control of the person liable to pay the amount."

From the above provision, it is clear that the authorities are entitled to seize and sell the motor vehicle or its accessories to realise the amount due.

In view of the above statutory scheme, the inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner being in possession of the vehicle, is bound to pay the tax.

If the view canvassed by the petitioner is accepted, the collection of motor vehicles tax can be successfully sabotaged by any operator in collusion with the financier. After defaulting substantial amounts towards the tax, seizure by the financier can be arranged to defeat the claim of the State. Most of the vehicles on our roads are financed by banks or private financiers. In contemplation of this contingency, the Legislature in its wisdom enacted Sections 9 and 13 making the vehicle and also the person in possession thereof liable to pay the tax.

The decision of the apex court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not be applicable to the facts of this case. The Supreme Court was interpreting the provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Taxation of Passengers Act. By interpreting the definition of ''Operator'' in Section 2(4) of the said Act, the Supreme Court said that a financier cannot be treated as an operator. The Section creating the liability to pay the tax, is not extracted in the said decision. Apparently, only an operator of a stage carriage may be liable to pay the tax on passengers under the Bombay Act. The interpretation of the provisions of the said Act will in no way support the contentions urged by the petitioner.

There is no merit in the Original Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.