Allowed

Vinod Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jul 2024WPT/49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a tax demand notice issued without prior assessment or opportunity of hearing. The court held the demand illegal for the pre-purchase period and remitted the matter to authorities for fresh adjudication following statutory procedure.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand notice dated 25.07.2023 quashed; matter remitted to Respondent No.3 for fresh assessment and notice of hearing.

Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Specific Performance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (T) NO. 49 OF 20 24

¶5

1. Vinod Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Rajnarayan Mishra, Aged About 52 Years By Occupation Bus Operator, R/o Milan Chowk, Jaspur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Government Of Chhattisgarh, New Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

2. The Transport Commissioner of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

3. The Tax Officer / District Transport Officer Jaspur (C.G.)

¶11

4. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Department of Ministry of Road Transport & Highway Mantralaya, New Delhi.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner	: Shri Subhodh Pandey, Advocate.
For State	: Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Govt.
	Advocate.
For Respondent UOI	: Shri Ramakant Mishra, ASG.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

¶15

19.07.2024

¶16

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the notice dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure P/7) issued by the respondent No.3 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.87,638/towards arrears of All India Tourist Permit Tax from April, 2023 to July, 2023 and interest thereon.

¶17

2. It is a case of the petitioner that he purchased a passenger Bus on 08.06.2023 which was registered on the same day in the name of petitioner. Notification of All India Tourist Vehicle (Authorization or Permit) Rules, 2021 (in short, the Rules, 2021) was published on 10.03.2021 by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways which came

¶18

-2-

¶19

into force w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Permit has been defined under Rule 2(1) (d) of the Rules of 2021, which reads as under:

¶20

“Permit means a permit issued by the Transport Authority to enable a tourist vehicle operator/owner to ply tourist vehicle throughout the territory of India without payment of taxes or fee levied by the State or Union Territory through which it plies.”

¶21

3. According to said Rules of 2021, the petitioner is liable to pay one time All India Tourist Permit Tax. The petitioner paid Rs.90,000/-towards All India Tourist Permit Tax on 20.06.2023 for the period from 20.06.2023 to 19.09.2023. The respondent No.3 without giving any show cause notice, without affording any opportunity of hearing and without passing any assessment order directly issued a demand notice on 25.07.2023 directing him to deposit the arrears of tax of Rs.87,638/claiming taxes from April, 2023 to 31^st July, 2023, which is under challenge in the writ petition.

¶22

4. The respondents have contested the case of the petitioner and pleaded that as per Section 20 of The Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1991 (in short, the Act, 1991), there is an alternative remedy of appeal against an order made for levy of tax or for penalty imposed under Section 30 or aggrieved by the seizure of motor vehicle made under Section 16, or aggrieved by any order passed under the Act, 1991. Therefore, the petitioner is having alternative remedy of appeal and the writ petition is not maintainable. He would further submit that on 18.04.2023 the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India, has issued a Gazette notification regarding rules for All India Tourist Permit and the same is applicable w.e.f.

¶23

-3-

¶24

01.05.2023 in which it has been provided that the fees deposited by All India Tourist Permit shall be distributed amongst the State and Union Territories as per the formula given in the said Rule.

¶25

5. The State Govt. vide its order dated 12.07.2023 has issued instructions to levy monthly taxes as per the Ist Schedule of the Act, 1991 with respect to All India Tourist Permit vehicles to all the taxation authority of the State of Chhattisgarh. Therefore, in view of Subsection (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, 1991, the petitioner is liable to pay a tax levied as per the rate specified in Ist Schedule, Part-IV, Sub Clause (f) for all India tourist permit. Therefore, as per the Acts and Rules as well as the circular of the State Govt. dated 12.07.2023, the respondents have initiated proceeding and issued notice for recovery of tax of Rs.87,638/- for the period between April, 2023 to 31^st July, 2023. Therefore, the petition does not have any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has purchased the vehicle in the month of June, 2023 whereas, the authorities are raising demand from the month of April, 2023 which is per se illegal. Further, he has already paid the tax under All India Tourist Permit Tax and deposited Rs.90,000/- however, the State is further demanding Rs.87,638/-which is illegal demand raised by the respondent authorities as per the notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt. of India, dated 10.03.2021. Therefore, the impugned notice may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the authorities for reconsideration and to pass a fresh order.

¶27

-4-

¶28

7. The petitioner takes exception to the demand raised by the respondents on the ground that the taxation authority without any assessment and without any adjudication under sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act, 1991 has raised the demand. Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act, 1991 reads as under:

¶29

“4. Where the owner fails to file a declaration required under sub-section (1) or (2) the Taxation Authority may, on the basis of information available with it and after giving to the owner an opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing, determine the amount of tax payable by such owner suo motu and intimate the same to him in such form and within such time as may be prescribed.”

¶30

8. From bare perusal of the demand notice dated 25.07.2023, Annexure P/7, it is quite vivid that without there being any assessment the respondent No.3 has issued the demand notice to the petitioner claiming in it to deposit Rs.87,638/- towards All India Tourist Permit Tax from the period in between April, 2023 to 31^st July, 2023 whereas the petitioner has purchased the vehicle on 08.06.2023 itself. When the vehicle itself was purchased on 08.06.2023, he is not liable to pay any tax prior to that date that too without there being any proper assessment, without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing.

¶31

9. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case and also the provisions of the Act, 1991, as also in view of notification dated 10.03.2021 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Govt. of India, the impugned demand notice dated 25.07.2023, Annexure P/7, is not sustainable and accordingly quashed. However, the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.3 to consider the case afresh and

¶32

-5-

¶33

to provide proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass the assessment order first and thereafter to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶34

10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order

¶35

as to costs.

¶36

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶37

inder

Vinod Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naval Kishore Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Food Corporation of India Vs B. L. Yadav

M/S Chhattisgarh Engineering Vs Executive Engineer

Vipin Mirani Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Shakti Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramjeet Yadav Vs Mahesh Prasad Yadav