AMAR NATH CHAUBEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Himanshu Shekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for all the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner had purchased a taxi bearing registration no.UP 67 T 3558 on 29.4.2012. The said vehicle was purchased by the petitioner on being financed by the Tata Motor Finance. The petitioner got the said vehicle registered in his name. There is no averment in the pleadings that the said vehicle was purchased under a hire purchase agreement or under an agreement of lease or hypothecation, though it was duly financed and appears to be under hypothecation. On account of non-payment of instalments it was repossessed on 17.10.2014 by the finance company.

(3.) A recovery of Rs. 39,600.00 as tax and Rs. 32,076/- as penalty, total Rs. 71,676/- for the period 1.10.2012 to 30.6.2016 has been issued in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said recovery, has preferred this petition contending that as the vehicle was in possession of the finance company during the said period, the liability to pay taxes in respect of the said vehicle is upon it.