VIKAS UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Recovery citation dated November 7, 2022 issued against the petitioner, on account of motor vehicle tax, is under challenge in the present petition.

(2.) The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased a Tata Ace Magic vehicle bearing registration No.UP 62T 8337 on January 24, 2013. The petitioner borrowed loan from TATA Motors Finance Limited (respondent no.5). The vehicle was hypothecated with TATA Motors Finance Limited. The petitioner regularly paid installments of the loan. Thereafter, due to loss in travelling business, he failed to pay further installments. On August 25, 2014, the petitioner surrendered the vehicle before respondent no.5. Thereafter, the vehicle was sold by the Finance Company to some other person. After possession of the vehicle was taken by the financer, the liability of the tax cannot be put on the petitioner as in that case the financer or the subsequent purchaser will be liable to pay the tax. In support of the argument reliance has been placed upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others, (2022) 5 SCC 525.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State submitted that in terms of Rule 18 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the petitioner was required to inform the Taxation Officer about the fact that the possession of the vehicle in question was taken by the financer, so as to enable the authority to fasten liability on the financer. As the petitioner has failed to do so, demand was raised against him. However, in case, he points out the details to the Taxation Officer, the issue will be examined in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services' case (supra).