Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10973 (UTT)

NAND KISHORE v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/2622/2025 · 2025-09-09

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:7971 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2622/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner has challenged order dated 01.03.2025 issued by Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Udham Singh Nagar. By the said order, petitioner has been asked to deposit ₹2,18,397/- as arrears of tax and penalty between the period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that EICHER Container Truck, for which demand has been raised, was seized by the Police Authorities, as it was found involved in a road accident and said truck is lying in police custody ever since 26.06.2013; thus, it is submitted that petitioner is not liable to pay any tax to the Transport Authority, as the truck is not being plied after 26.06.2013. 5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to submit information about the seizer of truck and he could also have surrendered the permit for running the said truck. He further points out that petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 18 of The Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Taxation Reforms Act, 2003. 2025:UHC:7971 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute the said submission that Statutory remedy of appeal is available to petitioner. 7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to file appeal against the order impugned in this writ petition. If he files appeal within two weeks from today, the same shall be heard and decided on merit, as per law, within six weeks thereafter. For a period of eight weeks or till disposal of petitioner’s appeal, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. However, if petitioner fails to file appeal within stipulated time, he will not be entitled to benefit of this order and the Authorities shall be at liberty to proceed against him, as per law. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 09.09.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726F BB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.09 05:57:51 -07'00' 2025:UHC:7971