Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 832 of 2021
Petitioner :- Munnilal Bind
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the State and also perused the record.
Petitioner is resisting the demand of road tax of Rs.1,80,594/- along with penalty on the vehicle bearing Registration No.UP61E9138. The petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle which was financed by the respondent no.5. Owing to default on the payment of the loan/debt of the petitioner to the said respondent no.5, the aforesaid motor vehicle is stated to have been seized by the respondent no.5 on 14.10.2016. Relying upon a Full Bench decision in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2020 (1) ADJ 629, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the entire demand of road tax being for the period subsequent to the re-possession of the vehicle by the respondent no.5 may be recovered from it by virtue of that respondent because of the 'owner' of the vehicle under the fiction of law.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the issue being raised by the petitioner has been dealt with and decided against the petitioner in Writ Tax No.544 of 2021 (Mohammad Tehseen Khan Vs. State of U.P. And Others) vide order dated 11.08.2021.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, we find that though it may be true that the respondent no.5 may also be saddled with the recovery of road tax on the vehicle in question after its re-possession by the said respondent. At the same time, the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) does not hold and that on account of the vehicle being re-possessed, the registered owner would be absolved of that liability. Identical issue has been dealt with by an earlier order dated 11.08.2021 in Writ Tax No.544 of 2021. For the reasons given in that order, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Further, the relevant paragraphs of the Full Bench decision in Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) are reproduced as under:-
"142. The fact that the name of the Financier, after taking possession of such vehicle, is not entered in the Certificate of Registration as the registered owner, is of no consequence in this regard, as, the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 9, Sub-section (3) of Section 20 and Section 2(g) and 2(h) do not contemplate any such requirement in the case of a vehicle, covered under the relevant agreements, already discussed hereinabove, which is in possession of the Financier under such agreement. All that is necessary is the possession of the motor vehicle. If it has been taken by the Financier under such agreement, he would be liable, of course, along with the operator, if any, jointly and severally.
144. The word used in Section 9(3) and 20 of the Act, 1997 is not ''registered owner' but ''Owner', therefore, for purposes of liability to tax etc., the Act, 1997, in view of Section 2(h) therein, envisages the onus not only on the ''registered owner' but also on the person in possession under the agreements referred earlier. The same analogy/principle applies to the liability of ''Operator' under Section 2(g). In the context of the questions referred to us the fact that the name of the Financier is not entered in the Certificate of Registration, is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether he has taken possession of the vehicle under the agreements referred earlier or not."
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to institute proper proceedings, if required, against the respondent no.5 with respect to the inter-se dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 as to the liability to pay road tax on vehicle bearing Registration No.UP61E9138 So far as the road tax liability is concerned, both the petitioner and also the respondent no. 5 shall be liable to pay the same. However, the amount may be recovered only once.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 Siddhant