High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jai Prakash Rao v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 426 of 2006  RD-AH 5392 (7 March 2006)
Court No. 10
Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 426 of 2006
Jai Prakash Rao Vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.
The petitioner has come up before this Court seeking to challenge recovery citation dated 15-12-2005/Annexure-4 to the petition requiring petitioner to appear before Tehsildar, Hata (Kushinagar) on 22-12-2005.
The case of the petitioner, as per his pleadings contained in the present petition, is that after purchasing Maxi Cab-Registration No.UP-57/2188 in 1996 he did not ply the vehicle as it became a chunk due to accident on 27-1-1998 wherein Engine and Chasis-both of the said vehicle were damaged and it was no more usable. It is further stated that vehicle was toed by tractor and parked in front of door of the house of petitioner.
There is no explanation as to why petitioner did not obtain permit during 1996-98 i.e. from the date of registration till date of alleged accident. It is further pleaded that information of the above fact was sent to the Regional Transport Officer, Gorakhpur vide letter dated 29-1-1998/Annexure-2 to the petition.
Interestingly, petitioner has not disclosed as to whether letter was sent by hand or post, and if so, registered or not. It is also not disclosed as to whether petitioner thereafter cared to find out fate of said information. It is conceded before us that procedure prescribed for surrendering registration contemplated under U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (particularly Section 12) was not followed.
In view of the admitted position, there has been no intimation to concerned authority and no steps taken for surrendering registration in the eye of law. The case pleaded before us also does not inspire confidence on perusing petitioner's representation/letter dated 7-1-2006/Annexure-5 to the petition which he had submitted before Regional Transport Officer, Gorakhpur for getting verification of the fact that petitioner has no permit for using the vehicle as ''transport vehicle' .
One find no good reason as to why petitioner did not refer to earlier alleged intimation vide letter dated 29-1-1998/Annexure-2 to the petition in view of statutory provision as pointed out by learned Standing Counsel particularly Section 12(2). The procedure prescribed for surrendering registration vide Rule 22 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 has not been adopted.
In that view of the matter, petitioner cannot escape liability to pay/additional tax in view of Section 12 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997.
In view of the above, petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.
No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.