MADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Recovery citation dated July 3, 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 he had purchased three Tata Sumo Cars bearing registration Nos. UP 16AT 2265, UP 16AT 2266 and UP 16AT 2267. The same were hypothecated with M/s Magma Fincorp Limited. Being unable to pay EMI of loan, the petitioner surrendered the vehicles bearing registration nos.UP 16AT 2266 and UP 16AT 2267 on July 31, 2015 and bearing registration no. UP 16AT 2265 on August 12, 2015 with request to sale out the vehicles for recovery of the loan amount. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved application dated December 20, 2015 before the Regional Transport Officer, Gautam Buddh Nagar informing him about surrendering of the vehicles to the Finance Company. Petitioner has already paid tax in respect of the vehicles in question up to March 31, 2015. 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 will be liable to pay the tax. In support of the argument reliance Chief Justice's Court 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 the issue will be examined in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services' case (supra).