Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 792 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ishrawati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Shri S.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had paid all taxes due on the motor vehicle registered as UP 65 AR 1627 for the period up to 30.09.2010. It is the further case of the petitioner that during that period itself, on 15.07.2010, the aforesaid motor vehicle fell into a gorge and was thus lost. Due intimation of the same is also stated to have been given to the SHO, P.S. Pipri, Sonbhadra on 18.07.2010. Photocopy of the duly stamp receipt of that intimation has also been annexed with the writ petition. Further, it has been submitted that acting strictly in accordance with law, the petitioner has submitted Form 'F' before the Taxation Officer on 23.09.2010 informing the authority about the said loss of the motor vehicle bearing registration number UP 65 AR 1627, in the manner described above.
In such facts, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no action whatsoever was taken by the Taxation Officer or by the Regional Transport Officer on the intimation furnished by the petitioner, in the manner prescribed. Almost after 9 years, on 10.12.2019, demand of motor tax Rs. 2,32,650/- together with penalty Rs. 2,11,174/- has been demanded from the petitioner for the aforesaid motor vehicle bearing registration number UP 65 AR 1627 for the period 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2019. The same is stated to be wholly contrary to law.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would submit that in the first place, there is no evidence of the FIR having been lodged with respect to the loss of the motor vehicle. He further relies on Section 55 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to submit, as the petitioner has yet not sought cancellation of the registration of the aforesaid motor vehicle, he continues to be liable for tax. Last, it has been submitted that in any case, the petitioner would remain liable to tax beyond the period of three months from the date of submission of the application on Form 'F', dated 23.09.2010.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find it difficult to accept the objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel based on Section 55 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, inasmuch as though cancellation of the registration would necessarily lead to cessation of liability to pay road tax on any motor vehicle subsequent to the date of cancellation, at the same time, it cannot be said that the corollary is equally true that is, unless the registration of the vehicle is cancelled, the registered owner will always, in all situation remain liable to pay tax.
Once the petitioner had filed an application on Form 'F' disclosing the fact that the motor vehicle had been lost in an accidental occurrence, it was incumbent on the Taxation Officer to pass appropriate order on the same before the said authority could proceed to recover the tax. As to the other objection that the suspension of tax liability could not extend beyond three months because the petitioner did not approach the Regional Transport Officer, we are not impressed by the objection as raised by the State, inasmuch as that situation may arise only after the Taxation Officer has made his inquiry and reached at some tentative conclusion. In case the Taxation Officer reaches a conclusion to accept the claim made by the petitioner, it would be incumbent on such officer to make a further reference or recommendation to the Regional Transport Officer for suspension of the tax liability as in such a case, an impossibility may arise in law and/or on facts, of the petitioner ever being able to ply the vehicle.
If the contrary were found to be true, an appropriate order would be passed by the Taxation Officer or by the Regional Transport Officer as may allow the petitioner to contest the matter further in appeal itself. Therefore, at this stage, it would be wholly premature to non-suit the petitioner with respect to its application filed under Rule 22 of the Rules merely because it has yet not sought cancellation of the registration.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no. 3 to conduct a proper enquiry on facts and pass an appropriate order with respect to the suspension of tax liability claimed by the petitioner, for a period of three months and beyond. It is further made clear, in the event, it is required a proper recommendation may be made by the Taxation Officer to the respondent no. 2 in terms of the requirement of Rule 22 (4), of the aforesaid Rules.
The above exercise may be completed within a period of three months. For a period of three months', no coercive measure shall be adopted against the petitioner.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Saurabh