Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3011-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 312 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Ojha Respondent :- Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Arto) Rto Office Pratapgarh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Bhushan Singh,Pranjal Apurva,Sandeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Against an order imposing tax under Section 4/6 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 or a notice issued thereunder a person aggrieved has a remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the said Act, 1997. Instead of preferring the same the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ - C No. 1974 of 2024 which was decided on 29.02.2024 in the following terms:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the undated Notice No.86/Demand Notice/2022 is issued against the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that grievance of petitioner would sufficiently be met in case the petitioner is permitted to file his objections against the said demand notice, which may be considered and decided in accordance with law. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the same. 5. In view thereof, petitioner is permitted to file his objections before Taxation Officer, Motor Vehicle Department, Office of Assistant Regional Tansport Office, Pratapgarh within a period of three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. 6. In case such the objections are filed by petitioner, the Taxation Officer, Motor Vehicle Department, Office of Assistant Regional Tansport Office, Pratapgarh shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks' from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. 7. With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of." 3. In pursuance thereof the representation of the petitioner has been considered and rejected. 4. Merely, because a writ petition was filed and a direction aforesaid was issued would not mean that the remedy of appeal under Section 18 is not to be availed, therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the said remedy as per law. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. . (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 17.1.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench