Allahabad High Court
Himanshu vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 23 May, 2024
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:93389-DB
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 874 of 2024
Petitioner :- Himanshu
Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Kesharwani,Satyendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is, he had purchased commercial vehicle bearing registration No. UP50-AT-3451. Further, he had obtained finance from respondent no. 5 in whose favour hypothecation existed in the registration record. Later, for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, default arose in repayment of loan to respondent no. 5. Accordingly, respondent no. 5 repossessed the above described motor vehicle in the month of December, 2018 and sold the same as scrap. Since then, the petitioner remained deprive of possession and use of the said vehicle. Still, vide impugned recovery citation, road tax on the above vehicle is being demanded for the past period. At present, that liability has been quantified to INR 3,18,712/-.
3. In similar facts, Writ-Tax No. 172 of 2024 (Dasharath Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.) has been disposed of by the following order :
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is, though he was original registered owner of the Truck bearing Registration No. U.P.-65 AT 6957, that vehicle had been financed from respondent no.4. Owing to default committed by the petitioner in repayment of its loan, respondent no.4 repossessed the vehicle in the year 2019.
3. In such facts, it is the contention of the petitioner, he is not liable for road tax dues of the said vehicle since its repossession.
4. Whatever be the facts this much is clear, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. State of U.P. & Ors. (2022) 5 SCC 525, the petitioner who is the original owner, may not be liable for road tax dues on the vehicle in question from the date of its repossession by the finance authority.
5. At present, the tax liability appears to be Rs. 178424/- for the period 1st October, 2018 onwards yet, the original authority has not been approached in accordance with law and thus, that authority has yet not applied its mind.
6. In view of facts noted above, no useful purpose may be served by keeping the present writ petition pending or calling for counter affidavit. This petition is disposed of with a direction, in case the petitioner files a fresh application on the prescribed proforma before respondent no.2 referable to Rule18 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998, within a period of two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, that application shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months therefrom.
7. Subject to first compliance made, for a period of three months or till the disposal of the application to be made by the petitioner, whichever is earlier, no coercive measure may be adopted against the petitioner."
4. In view of the similar facts, present petition is also disposed of on the same terms.
Order Date :- 23.5.2024
SA
(Donadi Ramesh, J.) (S.D. Singh, J.)
