In case of loss of vehicle, the Road Tax authorities have power to write off the demand

In case of loss of vehicle, the Road Tax authorities have power to write off the demand from the date the vehicle is lost

In a recent judgment Hon’ble Allahabad High Court noted that in case the petitioner establishes the loss of vehicle, the authority has the power to write off the entire demand from the date the vehicle is lost. 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4301 (2024) (10) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, a Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order passed by the Road Tax Authorities called upon to deposit tax and penalty.

It was the case of the Petitioner that his vehicle, a Trailer, caught fire and a F.I.R. was registered at Police Station. Based on the fact that entire vehicle was destroyed, the petitioner applied with the Road Tax Authorities for cancellation of registration of the vehicle in question. However, no action as taken on his application.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that apparently after making of the application, neither the petitioner followed nor the department cared qua the application and seven and half year later a communication was issued to the petitioner indicating that on his application the registration was temporarily suspended for a period of three months and post the said suspension, the tax was payable.

The Department contended that in terms of Section 55 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the Petitioner was required to produce a part of the chassis, which had not been done and that the on the Petitioners application, the registration was suspended for three months only and therefore, the demand of tax and penalty was made.

The petitioner stated that Section 55 of the Act does not require anything, as claimed by the Department. Further, the application which was made, was not for temporary suspension, as the vehicle was completely burnt and therefore, there was no question of seeking a temporary suspension and therefore, the demand made by the respondents for the tax qua all this period and suspending the registration only for a period of three months, cannot be countenanced.

The Department submitted that the case is governed by provisions of Rule-22A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 which deals with the procedure for writing off the tax or the additional tax regarding non existing vehicles. That it was required of the petitioner to establish the fact that the vehicle was not in existence, based on which, the authority can pass an order and write off the tax from the date the vehicle was lost, however, apparently the petitioner had not produced any material to establish the same. It was further submitted that instruction regarding producing a piece of the chassis, is based on the procedure adopted, based on the instructions, to ensure that only in genuine cases, where the vehicle is lost that the registration is cancelled and the demand of tax and penalty is written off. It was also submitted that the petitioner may approach the authority, who would consider all the facts and pass an appropriate order.

The Hon’ble High Court noted that the application which was made by the petitioner, indicated that the same essentially was filed for a temporary suspension of license and therefore, the stand taken by the department, could not be faulted. However, in terms of provisions of Rule-22A of the Rules, in case the petitioner establishes the loss of vehicle, the authority has the power to write off the entire demand from the date the vehicle is lost and in those circumstances, the petitioner has to approach the authority for the said purpose along with the material as required in terms of the provisions of Rule-22A of the Rules and/or circulars issued by the respondents.

Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with direction that the petitioner may approach the Authority for the purpose of seeking cancellation of the registration under the provisions of the Rules. In case the petitioner approaches the authority, it is expected of the authority to pass appropriate order in accordance with law with expedition.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• ITAT allows exemption of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 10(10A) to non-government employees
• PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases passed by the NFAC or the JAO
• Appellate court interfering with MACT finding must undertake reappreciation of evidence
• When delay is not huge & involves huge monetary liability, lenient approach to be taken
• EoGM of company can not ratify diversion of fund raised by preferential issue – SC