Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 794 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Malka Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to implead the Transport Commissioner as respondent no. 3, during the course of the day.
This writ petition has been filed to quash the demand notice dated 18.09.2020 seeking recovery of Rs. 1,67,442/- from the petitioner towards Road Tax on motor vehicle bearing registration no. UP 80 BT 4581.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid vehicle was purchased by the petitioner's husband, in the name of the petitioner. However, it was the husband of the petitioner who used to ply that vehicle against hire charges, to earn livelihood. It is further stated that the vehicle suffered an accident, wherein, it was lost and could not be plied thereafter.
The husband of the petitioner is also stated to have died on 05.08.2016, where after, the petitioner has been reduced to penury and has been forced to work at different house holds, on part time basis, to make two ends meet.
In short, the petitioner claims complete financial distress as may not allow her to pay any substantial amount of the tax, being demanded.
In such facts, we find that the Transport Commissioner is not powerless. In fact, he may, if the facts deserve, use the power vested in him under Rule 22 A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 and grant substantial, if not complete relief being claimed by the petitioner.
While tax dues are not to be waived or diluted for the mere asking, at the same time, the State machinery cannot be expected to work heartlessly as may overlook the genuine hardships faced by individual citizens. In the case of corporations or business entities, different considerations may flow, however, in the case of an individual citizen, equitable considerations may carry more weight.
The vehicle appears to have been acquired only to earn livelihood. Even if it be assumed that the petitioner's husband had neglected to pay the Road Tax, in accordance with law, yet, the State and its high functionaries may remain compelled to act on humanitarian considerations so that the operation of law may not be seen completely divorced from equitable considerations.
In that view, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner approaches to the Transport Commissioner along with a copy of this order and files a fresh representation within a period of two weeks' from today annexing therewith her personal affidavit, the supporting evidence and relevant documents to establish her genuine hardship, the said authority may decide that representation in light of the observations made above so that substantial relief may be granted to the petitioner.
Such exercise may be concluded within a period of three months' from the date of representation being filed. For a period of six months or till the disposal of the representation, whichever is later, no coercive measure be adopted against the petitioner.
If the petitioner however fails to comply with the aforesaid order in filing a representation within a period of two weeks', the benefit of this order shall not be given to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 Saurabh