Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 766 (KER)

M/s NPR Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala

2001-12-21

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2001
Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner contending that writ petitioner being the financier is not legally liable to pay the amount due from third respondent by way of arrears of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Counsel place reliance on the decision of this Court in State Of Kerala V. Sree Poornathrayeesa Vilasam Bank Ltd., 1971 K.L.J.154 as well as unreported decision of this Court in O.P. 20121 of 1998. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in M.T. Kunju Mohammed v. Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, AIR 2000 Kerala 231. 2.We are of the view in view of the clear provision in the Statute the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained. Under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act liability is fixed under Section 9 of the Act. We may extract the said provision for easy reference. 9. Liability to pay of tax by person 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 to 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 such vehicle. It is evident from the above mentioned provision that is 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 or such vehicle, the person to 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. Since there is such a clear provision in the Act we are of the view the financier who is in control of the vehicle is liable to pay the tax payable in respect of the motor vehicle if unpaid. 3. We may in this connection refer to section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act which deals with levy of tax. Section 3 (3) of the Act states that the registered owner of or any person having possession or control of, a motor vehicle shall , for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to use or keep such vehicle for use in the State, except during any period for which no tax is payable on such motor vehicle under sub-section (1) of Section 5. Tax can also be levied either among person who have in possession or control of a motor vehicle. Section 4 of the Act also deals with payment of tax and issue of licence. Section 4(1) states that the tax levied under sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be paid in advance within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed by the registered owner or person having possession or control of the motor vehicle. Therefore if any amount is due from the registered owner or person having possession or control of the motor vehicle the same could be realised under Section 13 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act which reads as follows: 13. 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 or public revenue due on land. (2) The motor vehicles in respect of which any amount is due to 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. On a conjoint reading of Sections 3(3), 4(1), 9 and 13 we have no hesitation to hold that financier is also liable to pay the amount. In case amount is not paid it is always open to the department to proceed against the vehicle. It is also open to the authorities to distrain the vehicle or sell the same for realization of the amount. In case amount is not paid it is always open to the department to proceed against the vehicle. It is also open to the authorities to distrain the vehicle or sell the same for realization of the amount. Under such circumstance we cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that financier may not be personally liable. Same is the view taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in O.P. 31173/99 with which we fully concur. In view of the above mentioned reasons we are of the view that the decision of this court in O.P 20121/98 is not good law. 4. We are of the view the decision of the Division Bench in Sreepoorna Thrayeesa Vilsam Bank's case(Supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case which was a case where the Division Bench has taken the view that the State has no first charge in view of the decree obtained by third party in O.S. 27 of 1960 of Sub Court, Ernakulam. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Appeal lacks merits and accordingly the same is dismissed.