Canara Bank Ltd. and Another vs Dy. Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Kottayam and Others

P. Govindan Nair, J.—The first petitioner, a banking institution, has challenged Exts. P. 5 and P. 6 in this writ application Ext. P. 5 is a communication addressed by the Tahsildar, Kottayam to the first petitioner in which it is stated that the first petitioner is liable to pay vehicle tax for certain vehicles which were registered in the name of a company called "New Bharat Motors (P) Ltd." It is stated in Ext. P. 5 that the "New Bharat Motor (P) Ltd.", had entered Into a Hire purchase agreement with the second petitioner and that an officer of the first petitioner held a power of attorney of the second petitioner. Reference was also made to a letter written by that officer, when revenue recovery proceedings were taken for the recovery of the tax and the vehicles were attached on a former occasion. Ext. P. 6 followed Ext. P. 5 and contains a demand for the payment of the vehicle tax and a threat that on default revenue recovery proceedings will be resorted to. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners has urged only a short point before me. He said it is unnecessary for the purpose of this writ application to consider the question of the respective rights of the "New Bharat Motors (P) Ltd.", the 2nd petitioner, and the first petitioner to the vehicles in question. These it is submitted, will have to be determined in appropriate proceedings. His only contention was that the first petitioner not being the registered owner of the vehicle, the first petitioner cannot be held responsible for the payment of the vehicle tax. He invited my attention to Section 4 of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, the relevant part of which is in these terms:

(1) (a) The tax levied in respect of a motor vehicle in pursuance of a notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be paid by the registered owner or person having possession or control of the motor vehicle at his choice either quarterly, half-yearly or annually upon a quarterly, half-yearly, or annual licence to be taken out by him.

It is pointed out that by virtue of the definition of the term "registered owner" contained in Section 2 (8) of the Act and the petitioner not being the registered owner of the vehicle, no demand can be made against the petitioner. My attention was also drawn to Section 5. Section 5, according to counsel for the petitioner in the only exemption to the rule in Section 4. I need not refer to this section since that deals with vehicles other than motor vehicles.

It is admitted that the first petitioner is not the registered owner of the vehicle and it necessarily follows therefore that no demand can be made on the first petitioner for the payment of the vehicle tax due for the vehicles. On that short ground, I set aside Exts. P. 5 and P. 6 and allow this writ application. I make it clear that this judgment does not conclude any of the parties with regard to their respective interests in these vehicles which, as I indicated earlier, must be determined in appropriate proceedings. This writ application is ordered as above. There will be no direction regarding costs.