M.T. Kunji Mohammed vs Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram and Others

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.—Petitioner challenges Exts. P-2 and P-3 revenue recovery notices issued on him demanding payment of tax payable in terms of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 in respect of a motor vehicle of which he is the registered holder. The registration certificate is admittedly in his name, the petitioner concedes. But the petitioner submits based on an agreement that he had transferred the vehicle in favour of the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent has admitted such transfer and that he was in possession of that vehicle. In such circumstances, petitioner, relying on Section 9 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 submits that the 4th respondent is liable to pay the tax. Therefore, demand notices issued on him namely Exts. P-2 and P-3 cannot be enforced on him.

Admittedly, the petitioner is the R. C. holder of the vehicle concerned. Registration certificate is the primary document to denote who is the owner of the vehicle. The primary liability to pay tax on the vehicle is on such owner. Ofcourse, if the vehicle is in the possession of anybody else and if the owner does not pay it, the department or the tax recovery officer can proceed against that person as well. But the liability of the registered owner who had so transferred the ownership or possession of the vehicle to pay the tax does not cease at all by reason of such transfer of ownership or possession. It is statutorily made clear in Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the said Act.

If he had changed the ownership it was incumbent on him to intimate the registering authority and to bring about necessary changes. Admittedly, the petitioner had not attempted to effect such change. Therefore, the petitioner cannot avoid the tax liability in respect of the vehicle in question.

O.P. therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs.