Gujarat High Court
Ranvisinh Dilubha Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 16 October, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9363/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9363 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==================================================
RANVISINH DILUBHA GOHIL
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 BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 16/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ramkrishan B. Dave for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal T. Shah for the respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah waives service of notice of Rule for Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:31:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9363/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined the respondents.
3. Having regard to the controversy involved which in narrow compass, this matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned advocates for both the parties.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"12(A) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondent No.2 to set aside the demand notice dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure-B) and direct the respondent no.2 to waive the penalty and recover the interest @ 9% and also direct the respondent no. 2 to remove the said vehicles from the black list."
5. The brief facts of the case are as under:
5.1. The petitioner is the registered owner of Omni Buses bearing registration No. GJ 18 AX 6574 and registration No. GJ 18 AX 6966. The said vehicles originally were registered as State carriages and were purchased by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that during the time of purchase and transfer of the vehicles in the name of the petitioner, tax dues as assessed were paid by the petitioner. 5.2. It is the case of the petitioner that there was an audit Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:31:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9363/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined objection and the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") demanded the difference of tax from the petitioner by two separate notices dated 10.09.2024. 5.3. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 2153 of 2025 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2025 being premature.
5.4. The petitioner also made a representation dated 15.03.2025 to ventilate his grievance. 5.5. The respondent had also issued notices dated 04.08.2025 demanding difference of tax for vehicle bearing registration No. GJ 18 AX 6574 for Rs.4,46,600/-, penalty of Rs.1,11,650/- and interest of Rs.2,04,320/- totalling Rs.7,62,570/- and for vehicle bearing registration No. GJ 18 AX 6966 of Rs.4,94,450/-, penalty of Rs.1,23,613/- and interest of Rs.2,26,211/- totalling Rs.8,44,274/-
6. Learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the outstanding Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:31:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9363/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined demand of tax of Rs.4,46,600/- for vehicle bearing registration No. GJ 18 AX 6574 and Rs.4,94,450/- for vehicle bearing registration No. GJ 18 AX 6966 with 9% interest before the respondents authorities. It was submitted that the petitioner would deposit the amount with respect to the two vehicles in question within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order.
7. It was submitted that this Court in the case of Mukesh Jhammanlal Gupta vs. State of Gujarat (R/Special Civil Application No.17509 of 2022 decided on 29th September 2023), after following the decision of this Court in the case of Pritiben Kiranbhai Arvindbhai Modi vs. State of Gujarat (Special Civil Application No.4449 of 2022 decided on 18th August 2022) has held that the petitioner therein is required to pay the amount of tax with 9% interest.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal T. Shah for the respondent submitted that the petitioner may be directed to deposit the outstanding tax amount with 9% interest in view of the decision in the case of Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:31:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9363/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Pritiben Kiranbhai Arvindbhai (supra).
9. Considering the above submissions, it would be germane to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Pritiben Kiranbhai Arvindbhai (supra) as under:
"24. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner has not disputed the payment of arrears of tax amounting to Rs.2,96,450/- as worked out in the demand notice dated 11.03.2022. However, the petitioner has prayed for waiver of interest and penalty.
25. Section 8A of the Act, 1958 provides for interest on non payment of tax and reads as under :
"8A (1) Where the whole or any portion of the tax due in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of any motor vehicle for any period or part thereof has not been paid in time by the person liable for the payment thereof, such person shall be liable to pay in addition to the tax so due, simple interest [at the rate of not exceeding eighteen per cent. per annum, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify], on the amount of tax so due but not so paid or any less amount thereof remaining unpaid during such period."
26. As per section 8A of the Act, 1958 interest at the rate not exceeding eighteen per cent per annum as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify, is liable to be levied on amount of tax so due but not so paid or any less amount thereof remaining unpaid during such period. Therefore, in the facts of the case when the petitioner is not responsible for payment of less amount of tax dues than the amount payable by the petitioner as per the Government notification dated 31.07.2014, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the respondents to levy interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount payable by the petitioner as per the impugned order.
Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:31:58 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9363/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
27. Section 18 of the Act, 1958 provides for levy of penalty for non payment of tax which reads as under :
"18(1) Where the whole or any portion of the tax due in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of any motor vehicle for any period or part thereof, has not been paid in time by the person liable for the payment thereof, the Taxation Authority may levy, in addition to the tax so due, a penalty not exceeding 25 per cent of the amount of tax (so due]."
28. On perusal of the above provision, it appears that levy of penalty is not mandatory and the taxation authority has discretion to levy such penalty not exceeding 25% of the amount of tax so due. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had no other option but to pay the amount of tax calculated by online portal of the respondent. The respondent authorities have failed to point out anything on record to show that though the online portal was showing amount of Rs.31,850/- per month to be paid by the petitioner but the petitioner paid the less amount of Rs.18,651/-. It is also not in dispute that there is no other mode of payment of tax available to the petitioner except paying the tax on online portal Vahan-IV of the respondent.
29. It also appears that the respondent authorities have issued fitness certificate to the petitioner on 23.09.2019 after inspection of the Luxury Omnibus owned by the petitioner. The petitioner was always ready and willing to pay tax payable to the respondent authorities, but for the error in the software of the respondents which did not allow the petitioner to pay the tax which was required to be paid by the petitioner and as such the petitioner could not pay the required tax.
30. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent authorities that the petitioner is required to furnish the details and confirm the same on the portal cannot be accepted as there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner furnished false or erroneous details with regard to vehicle owned by the petitioner.
31. In view of above, as there was an error in the software of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:31:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9363/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined penalty for less payment of tax.
32. The penalty levied by the respondent authorities under section 18(1) of the Act, 1958 is therefore, quashed and set aside.
33. This Court by order dated 16.03.2022 had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.4,62,126/- towards tax inclusive of penalty and interest with the RTO, Ahmedabad.
34. The respondents are therefore, directed to deduct the outstanding amount of tax with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to be calculated from the due date of payment till the realisation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order out of the amount deposited by the petitioner before RTO, Ahmedabad and refund the remaining amount to the petitioner."
10. In view of the above, as per the calculation, as submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the liability that is worked by the State is as under:
GJ 18 AX 6574 Tax Amount 446600 Interest 204320 Penalty 111650 Total 762570 GJ 18 AX 6966 Tax Amount 494450 Interest 226211 Penalty (25%) 123613 Total 844274
11. The petitioner is therefore, directed to deposit the amount Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:31:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9363/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined of Rs.4,46,600/- for vehicle bearing registration no. GJ 18 AX 6574 and Rs.4,49,450/- for vehicle bearing registration no. GJ 18 AX 6966, as per the above calculation submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State, with interest at the rate of 9% to be calculated from the due date of payment till the date of realization.
12. This petition is, accordingly, allowed in terms of the aforesaid directions.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (PRANAV TRIVEDI, J) phalguni Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:31:58 IST 2025