Gujarat High Court
Kanchanlal Chhitalal Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/18243/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18243 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting YesNo
✔
==================================================
KANCHANLAL CHHITALAL SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR RAMKRISHNA B DAVE(3404) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SHRUNJAL SHAH ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ramkrishna B. Dave for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondents.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 20:45:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18243/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined "16(A) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the order dated 17.05.2017;
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships would be pleased to stay the operation, execution and implementation of the order dated 17.05.2017."
3. The brief facts of the case are as under :-
3.1. The petitioner is the registered owner of the Omni Bus bearing Registration No. GJ-06-U-9656. The registration was mandated under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (For Short "the Act").
Subsequent to the registration, the vehicle was utilized for contract carriages purpose. Thereafter the vehicle was put in non-use condition from the month of August, 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that in consequence of putting the vehicle for non-use condition, the relevant checking was done by the appropriate authority under the Act and the checking memo was issued on 16.08.1996. It was further submitted that the vehicle was certified on 04.02.1997 since the same was in closed condition for the last seven months. However, prior to putting the vehicle in non-use condition, there was a short fall on payment of tax to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. 3.2. It was the case of the petitioner that the financer of the vehicle i.e. M/s. 29th Century Finance Corporation Ltd., had taken away the vehicle of the petitioner on 21.02.1998 while the vehicle was lying in Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18243/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined non-use condition. This eventuality had resulted into petitioner filing Civil Suit being Civil Suit No. 2095 of 1997 before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge (SD.) at Vadodara on 10.12.1997. However, the authorities under the Act issued summons dated 25.08.2005 for recovery of Rs.1,12,325/- towards tax and penalty. However, the petitioner could not respond to the notice and thereafter the Department continuously issued notices to the petitioner from 2005 to to 2016. The authorities also called for the record from the petitioner regarding non-use of the vehicle by way of communication dated 16.09.2016.
3.3. It is the case of the petitioner that despite such fact, the appropriate authority under the provisions of the Act issued notice for recovery of tax for the period from 01.06.1997 to 30.06.1997 for the amount of 34,78,490/- towards tax and Rs.8,71,873/- towards penalty and Rs.58,34,334/- towards interest and Rs.1,74,375/- towards surcharge. This order dated 17.05.2017 is impugned in the present writ petition alleging unreasonableness as well as breach of principles of natural justice. Subsequent to the impugned order, lien was created on property of the petitioner.However, it was candidly submitted by learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner that the petitioner had a short fall on payment of tax to the tune of Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18243/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined Rs.20,000/-. It was further submitted that prior to the vehicle being put in non-use condition, it was candidly accepted that the petitioner had made a request to pay such amount in installment way back in the year 1997.
4. This Court on 15.03.2018 had passed the following order :-
1. The petitioner has challenged order-cum-recovery notice issued by the RTO authorities seeking to recover unpaid RTO dues for the period between 01.06.1997 and 30.06.2017 with interest and penalty in connection with a commercial motor vehicle, a luxury bus. Such figure comes to Rs. 1,03,68,072/-. Case of the petitioner is that the vehicle was put in non-use which permission was also granted by the RTO authorities till 31.03.1997, after which, since the petitioner could not repay the dues of the financier, the same was re-possessed. Though the petitioner contends that this development was conveyed by the petitioner to the RTO authorities in the year 2000, there is nothing on the record to establish this averment of the petitioner. The department contends that in absence of any permission for non-use and in absence of intimation to the department that the petitioner is no longer in possession of the vehicle, it was his responsibility to pay the road tax.
2. We are prima facie of the view that the petitioner's liability to pay the taxes continued in absence of any non-use permission being granted by the department or the intimation of the vehicle being repossessed by the financier being sent to the authorities. The financier has been joined as respondent but has not appeared to either accept or controvert the petitioner's suggestion of repossession of the vehicle. However, the issue that requires consideration is whether the department can pass the order for recovery of unpaid dues after a period of nearly 20 years? In other words, there has been no limitation on the authority exercising such powers at any point of time.
3. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule. By way of interim relief it is provided that the recovery arising out of the impugned order shall stand stayed provided the petitioner deposits with the department 25% of the dues demanded in such order latest by 30.04.2018 failing which, this interim protection shall stand automatically vacated."
5. It was candidly admitted by learned advocate Mr. Dave that the petitioner was in short fall on payment of Rs.20,000/- admitted Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 20:45:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18243/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined tax due which was pending for more than 27 years. Therefore, it was agreed upon by learned advocate Mr. Dave that the purpose of the petitioner would be served if the amount of Rs.20,000/- is recovered from the petitioner along with appropriate interest for the period of 27 years.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondents under the instructions has submitted that the recovery of Rs.20,000/- along with appropriate interest if directed, the same would serve the purpose as recovery of the vehicle almost after a period of 30 years is bleak option.
7. In view of such consensus, the petitioner has filed an affidavit of undertaking which reads as under :-
"AFFIDAVIT OF UNDERTAKING I, Kanchanlal Chhitalal Shah, the petitioner do hereby solemnly say and affirm as under :-
1. I am the registered owner of the the motor vehicle bus no.
GJ-06-U-9656 which was kept in non-use and during the period of non-use the said vehicle was repossessed by the financier and hence the petitioner was not liable to pay any taxes thereafter. I say and submit that the petitioner was required to pay the last installment of Rs.20,000/- which was remained unpaid.
2. I am ready and willing to pay the amount of tax of Rs.20,000/- with interest till today which comes to Rs.2,40,000/-. I am ready and willing to pay the said amount by four installments of Rs.50,000/- per month on or before the 10th of each month and whatever the remaining amount will deposit as last installment.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 20:45:56 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18243/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025 undefined
3. I humbly request to remove the lien of the respondent on property of the petitioner on deposit of all installments and I humbly undertake to deposit all the installments in time as Your Hounour may direct to deposit failing which the respondent will be at liberty to continue to have lien on property of the petitioner."
8. In view of the above factual position, and on an undertaking given by the petitioner, the lien of the property of the petitioner will be removed subsequent to the payment being made by the petitioner as per the affidavit of undertaking.
9. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the lien on the property of the petitioner shall be removed on fulfillment of the undertaking given by the petitioner.
10. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) phalguni/133 Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Wed Nov 12 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 12 20:45:56 IST 2025