The recent legal case that took place in the Kerala High Court, the writ appeal, WA No.394/2024, filed by Mr. Krishnakumar.K.E, has evoked quite a bit of heated discussion. The writ petition was filed against the judgment given by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7515/2024 on the motor vehicle tax arrears. The core concern of the issue was the liability of the third respondent, the financier, of the vehicle, for the remaining tax arrears.
The key issue before the court was whether the third respondent would be responsible for the motor vehicle tax arrears accruing from 30/6/2022 onwards, and whether Mr. Krishnakumar had the legal standing to litigate for a judgment prior to any tax demand from the Revenue Authorities.
In court, Mr Krishnakumar argued that the seizure and the sale of the repaired vehicle by the third respondent should, therefore, result in the third respondent incurring the tax liabilities. He sought direction for the realization of these arrears from the first respondent.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court delivered the writ appeal judgment, delivered by Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Dr. Kauser Edappagath, dealing Mr. Krishnakumar a body blow to his claims. The court thus ruled that, unlike what the claimant argued, he could not sue the court in advance, that is, before the tax demand was raised by the tax body. As a result, the petitioner’s appeal was considered vexatious and was rejected summarily.
The premise of the judgment implies that the claimant has to obtain a tax demand from the revenue authorities before filing a complaint in a case of similar nature. It highlights the procedures for fulfilment and the magnitude of follow the established process on tax liability.
Written by- Kaavya Gopal, PES University, 6th semester, Intern under legal vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments