Disposed

Shahzadi Alam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2025WPC/808/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner paid quarterly motor vehicle tax twice for the same trailer at RTO Bilaspur and RTO Raigarh and sought a refund. The court disposed of the petition directing the District Transport Officer to verify and adjust any excess tax against future quarters within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

DTO Raigarh directed to consider claim and adjust excess tax against further quarter's liability within 2 weeks.

Shahzadi Alam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:7643

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 808 of 2025

¶6

1 Shahzadi Alam W/o Mehtab Aalam Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Masjid Para, Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 Commissioner Transport Department Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 District Transport Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Mamta Mahilange Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Mayur Khandelwal, P.L. / State

¶14

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

13/02/2025

Heard.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶20

"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund of the excess payment of Tax which has been taken two times for the same time and for the same Vehicle.

¶21

10.2 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶22

10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice."

¶23

With the consent of the parties, this case is heard finally.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the Trailer from Bilaspur. The Motor Vehicle was temporarily registered at Regional Transport Office (R.T.O.) District Bilaspur after depositing the requisite fees. Accordingly, the petitioner has also paid the quarterly tax for the Trailer bearing Chassis No. MAT828048RD05402 for the amount of Rs. 18,800/dated 15.07.2024 for a period from 15.07.2024 to 14.12.2024 Copy of the tax receipt is also enclosed as Annexure P/1.

¶25

He further submits that the petitioner took the Trailer from Bilaspur to Raigarh where, he applied for its permanent registration where, Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date:2025.02.13the petitioner has again paid the tax of Rs. 10,800/- dated 16:56:08 +0530 05.08.2024 for the period of July, 2024 to December, 2024. As the

¶26

¶27

petitioner has paid quarterly tax at R.T.O. Bilaspur and also at R.T.O. Raigarh, the petitioner has deposited the tax amount twice, however, as per law, the petitioner has to pay the quarterly tax only once at either of the Regional Transport Office and, therefore, the Respondent No. 3 be directed to refund the extra tax paid by the petitioner for the quarter from July, 2024 to December, 2024. He also contended that in the identical writ petition bearing WPC No.2508/2024, Hari Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & 02 Ors. , the respondent/State has filed its reply in which, the respondents have made an averment that the excess tax paid by the petitioner therein will be adjusted in accordance with the provision under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 and rules framed thereunder and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the same consideration.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/State does not dispute the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that there is provision for refund of the excess tax paid by any of the owner of the vehicle. However, it can be adjusted in further tax liability upon the petitioner. He does not dispute the submission of the counsel for the petitioner based on the reply submitted by the respondents/State in the case of Hari

¶29

Singh (Supra).

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of Hari Singh (Supra) , the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held liable for depositing the tax twice for the same quarter before different regional authorities and the tax which has been paid in excess, either to be refunded or to be adjusted in the next quarter of tax liability. In the reply placed before this Court in the case of Hari Singh (Supra), the respondent/State has stated that the excess tax paid by the petitioner will be adjusted in the next quarter. The relevant portion of the reply is extracted below. -

¶33

"5. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted an application for refund of the excess payment of tax prescribed format. Upon due consideration of the application of the petitioner, it is submitted that as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1991 as per First Schedule No. 5 Goods Carrier 2 (A) the motor vehicle tax of first quarter in respect to the Vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 13 AW 7332 is Rs. 10,800/- and as per Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act,1991 the tax which is paid in excess can be adjusted for the next quarter and accordingly, the excess amount of the petitioner has been adjusted for the next 5 months ie from the month of September to January, 2025.

¶34

6. In view of the above submissions the instant petition as framed and filed by the petitioner has now become infructuous and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed as the grievance putforth by way of the present petition has been redressed as the amount which has been paid by the petitioner in excess has been adjusted for the next quarter upto January, 2025.”

¶35

In the aforementioned facts of the case, instead of keeping this writ petition pending, seeking reply from the respondents in this

¶36

¶37

case, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage, directing the Respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner and if the Respondent No. 3 comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has deposited the excess tax than that, for which he is liable to pay, the Respondent No. 3 shall adjust the excess tax paid by the petitioner in the further quarter of tax to be paid by him. Let the decision be taken by the Respondent No. 3 in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 and rules framed thereunder in accordance with law, keeping in mind the stand taken in their reply in WP (C) No. 2508/2024 expeditiously, preferably within a period of 02 weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.

¶38

With the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Jyoti

Shahzadi Alam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahzadi Alam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshan Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vimla Devi Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shobha Sharma Vs Union of India

Bihari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

P.K. Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Kumar Gupta Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission