1 - Sai Govind Transport Through Its Managing Director Ajay Kumar Pandey S/o Mohan v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Transport Raipur District - Raipur
Case Details
1 RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.03.26 16:09:14 +0530 2025:CGHC:13305 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1457 of 2025 1 - Sai Govind Transport Through Its Managing Director Ajay Kumar Pandey S/o Mohan Kumar Pandey Aged About 44 Years R/o Ramsagar Para Rata Khar Ward No. 1 Korba District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Transport Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Transport Department Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Transport Officer Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel petitioner as well as Mrs. Upasana Mehta, learned Dy. Government Advocate 2 for the State/respondent/s. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “i. That, this 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. ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners. iii. 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.” 3. With the consent of the parties, this case is heard finally. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased a Goods Vehicle Vide registration No. CG 13 BC 7056 and its Horse (Tractor Trailer) Chassis No. MAT828048RAA00715. The petitioner has purchase the Horse (Tractor Trailer) and Trailer from Bilaspur and the temporary registration of Horse and Trailer were done in Regional Transport Office, Bilaspur for which the petitioner has paid quarterly Tax Rs. 1950/- dated 25.11.2024 for the period of 22.11.2024 to 30.04.2025 and in Regional Transport Office, Janjgir Champa has paid quarterly Tax Rs.21,600/- dated 25.11.2024 for the period of 23.11.2024 to 30.04.2025 i.e. total Rs.23,550/-has taken quarterly Tax by the Transport Department from the petitioner. (ANNEXURE-P/1). 5. He further submits that the petitioner took the Trailer from Bilaspur 3 to Raigarh where, he applied for its permanent registration where, the petitioner has again paid the tax of Rs.10,800/- dated 04.12.2024 for the period of 04.12.2024 to 28.02.2025. As the 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 04.12.2024 to 28.02.2025. 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. 6. 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 4 the reply submitted by the respondents/State in the case of Hari Singh (Supra). 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. 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. - "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.
Decision
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 5 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.” 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case, instead of keeping this writ petition pending, seeking reply from the respondents in this 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. 10. With the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi