Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12347 (JK)

NASHEELI WINE SHOP ROOP NAGAR JAMMU TH JAGJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER v. U T OF J AND K TH SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPTT AND OTHERS

WP(C)/1551/2022 · 2025-10-06

Sanjay Dhar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- WP(C) No.1551/2022 Nasheeli Wine Shop Roop Nagar Jammu & Anr. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (06.10.2025) 1. The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have sought a direction upon the respondents to comply with order No.PS/DS/04/2019, dated 17.02.2020 and to refund the excess amount of Road/Token Tax collected from them. 2. As per the case of the petitioners, the actual liability on account of registration charges and token tax of the vehicle of the petitioners was Rs.20,700/- only but the petitioners were made to deposit an additional amount of Rs.1,03,272/- against his liability of Rs.20,700/-. It has Serial No. 23 2 WP(C) No.1551/2022 been submitted that in the registration certificate, an amount of Rs.20,000/- only has been reflected. 3. It has been further submitted that an order came to be issued by the Finance Department of J&K bearing No. PS/DS/04/2019, dated 17.02.2020, according to which the new rates of registration of vehicle were made applicable with effect from 04.08.2019 and the vehicle for which the applications were received till 03.08.2019 were directed to be registered at the pre-revised rates. It has been submitted since the petitioner had made application on 1st August 2019, therefore amount chargeable was as per the pre-revised rates. 4. Respondent No.4 Shri Jasmeet Singh, Regional Transport Officer, Jammu is present in person. He has submitted that in case the petitioner makes an application for refund of excess amount, if any, charged by the respondent authority, the same would be considered by the said respondents in the light of order No.PS/DS/04/2019, dated 17.02.2020. Thereafter, if any excess amount has been deposited by the petitioner, the same would be refunded to him forthwith. 5. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to refund the excess amount that may have been deposited by the petitioner to him in 3 WP(C) No.1551/2022 the light of order No. PS/DS/04/2019, dated 17.02.2020 within a period of 15 days from the date the petitioner makes an application to him in this regard. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 06.10.2025 Sneha