Allahabad High Court
Ramraj vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 16 May, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106021-DB
Court No. - 47
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 632 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ramraj
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Srivastava,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand of road tax, for which demand notice has been issued on 16.11.2022 on the ground that the vehicle in question was repossessed by the fourth respondent on 09.05.2014 and, therefore, the liability to pay tax for the period thereafter would fall upon the fourth respondent. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Madan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others; [2023 (4) ADJ 585 (DB)], wherein following directions have been issued in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment:-
"4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner as he stated that possession of the vehicles in question was taken by the financer in August 2015 and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court inMahindra and Mahindra Financial Services' case (supra),the liability for payment of tax thereafter cannot be fastened on the petitioner. Relevant paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
"In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, it is held that a financier of a motor vehicle/transport vehicle in respect of which a hire-purchase or lease or hypothecation agreement has been entered, is liable to tax from the date of taking possession of the said vehicle under the said agreement. If, after the payment of tax, the vehicle is not used for a month or more, then such an owner may apply for refund under Section 12 of the Act, 1997 and has to comply with all the requirements for seeking the refund as mentioned in Section 12, and on fulfilling and/or complying with all the conditions mentioned in Section 12(1), he may get the refund to the extent provided in sub-section(1) of Section 12, as even under Section 12(1), the owner/operator shall not be entitled to the full refund but shall be entitled to the refund of an amount equal to one-third of the rate of quarterly tax or one twelfth of the yearly tax, as the case may be, payable in respect of such vehicle for each thirty days of such period for which such tax has been paid. However, only in a case, which falls under sub-section(2) of Section 12 and subject to surrender of the necessary documents as mentioned in sub-section(2) of Section 12, the liability to pay the tax shall not arise, otherwise the liability to pay the tax by such owner/operator shall continue." (emphasis supplied).
5. In view of aforesaid, the petitioner may file objection against the recovery citation dated July 3, 2022interms of Rule 18 of the Rules, mentioning that possession of the vehicles in question was taken by the financer in August 2015. In case, the petitioner files objection, the same be considered by the competent authority and from the date of possession of the vehicles was taken by the financer, the liability may be re-worked out in terms of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court inMahindra and Mahindra Financial Services' case (supra). However, for any period prior to that, if the tax has not been paid, the petitioner shall be liable to pay the same."
2. Since the controversy is similar, we permit the petitioner to file a similar objection against the recovery citation in terms of Rule 18 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1998 alongwith a copy of this order within two weeks from today. For the period prior to repossession of vehicle, the liability to pay tax would be that of the petitioner. The concerned authority i.e. respondent no. 2 shall pass fresh order determining the petitioner's liability in terms of Rule 18 and the observations made hereinabove within a period of six weeks.
3. Till a decision is taken in that regard or for a period of two months whichever is earlier, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned recovery. The rights of the parties would be determined in terms of the fresh adjudication made in terms of the above direction.
4. The petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023
Shafique
