SADASHIV DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Recovery citation dated October 1, 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 a Tata Magic (small commercial vehicle), bearing registration No. UP 90T 0839 on March 10, 2011. The same was hypothecated with M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited. On account of default in repayment of loan, the vehicle was seized by the financier in the year 2013. It was thereafter sold and on November 28, 2015, a notice was received by the petitioner for payment of balance loan amount. Upto the date the petitioner was in possession of the vehicle in question, he had deposited the tax. After possession of the vehicle was taken by the financier, the liability of the tax cannot be put on the petitioner as in that case the financier will be liable to pay the tax. The aforesaid facts have been stated by the petitioner in the objections filed to the recovery citation, however, not considered. In support of the argument reliance has been placed upon judgment of Hon'ble the Chief Justice's Court 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 financier so as to enable the authority to fasten the liability on the financier. As the petitioner had 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).