Court No. - 29

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 235 of 2023

Petitioner :- Rahish Ahmad

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Km Preete

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Acting Chief Justice

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

Heard Ms. Preete, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai

Das, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

Submission is, the petitioner was the owner of motor vehicle

bearing Registration No. UP13T6513. The same was financed by

M/s Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Arising from certain

defaults alleged by the said financier, the vehicle was re-possessed

by the financier on 30.01.2017. Thereafter, the vehicle was sold by

the financier towards recovery of its dues.

In such facts, the recovery certificate issued by Road Tax

Authorities demanding Rs. 1,28,040/- has been assailed.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, once the

vehicle has been re-possessed by the financier, it became liable for

the road tax dues arising on that motor vehicle.

Reliance has been placed on a decision of Supreme Court in

Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. Vs. State of

U.P., (2022) 5 SCC 525 and an order dated 16.01.2013 passed by

coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No. 33 of 2023

(Sadashiv Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.).

On the other hand, learned standing counsel has relied upon a

judgement of coordinate Bench of this Court in Chhote Lal Vs.

District Magistate/Collector and Another decided on 26.07.2021

in Writ Tax No. 404 of 2021.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused

the record, it is yet not clear when the vehicle was re-possessed by

the financier and when it may have been sold. The period for

which the recovery of road tax is being made, is also unclear.

No useful purpose would be served in keeping such a writ petition

pending. The fact issues may be best addressed by the statutory

authority vested with the original jurisdiction in such matters.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction, in case

petitioner files fresh representation before the Respondent No. 2 in

terms of Rule 18 of U.P. Motor Vehicle Tax Rules, 1998 within a

period of three weeks from today along with copy of this order,

that representation may be dealt with and decided on its own

merits by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one

month from the date of its filing. For a period of two months or till

the decision of the representation, whichever is earlier, disputed

demand of tax may remain in abeyance.

Order Date :- 2.3.2023

SK

(S.D. Singh,J.) (Pritinker Diwaker,ACJ.)

Digitally signed by :-

SANDEEP KUMAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad