PAVAN KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel representing respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) Perused the record.

(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand raised by the Taxation Officer, Lucknow imposing a tax liability for an amount of Rs. 80136.00 on the petitioner under the provision of U.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1997. It is not disputed that the Truck bearing Registration No. U.P.T.-3038 in respect whereof the aforesaid demand has been raised is registered in the name of the petitioner and he is registered owner thereof as contemplated under the U.P. Motor Vehicles Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned demand which relates to a period elapsing between 1-4-1997 and 30-6-2002 covers a period during which the motor vehicle, in question, was not in use at all. Therefore, it is urged that no tax liability could be fastened upon the petitioner to the extent as indicated in the impugned demand notice. In this connection, it has been urged that the motor vehicle, in question, had been purchased by the petitioner under a hire purchase agreement with the Financier. The Financier had seized the vehicle on 14-4-1998 from which date the vehicle is not being run at all. In the aforesaid circumstances it is urged that no tax liability could be fastened upon the petitioner for a period elapsing between 14-4-98 to 30-6-2002.