Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19894 (ALL)

M/S. GHAZIABAD AROCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/515/2025 · 2025-02-26

Arun Bhansali, Kshitij Shailendra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27257-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 515 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S. Ghaziabad Arochem Private Limited Respondent :- The State o Uttar Pradesh and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Saxena, Aanya Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Nimai Dass (A.C.S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of road tax realized in respect of the vehicles purchased by the petitioner. 2. Learned Standing Counsel submits that as the vehicles have been purchased from outside the State, the exemption is not available. 3. Reliance has been placed on an order of this Court in Devender Kumar vs. State of U.P. & 2 others : Writ Tax No. 1791 of 2024 decided on 23.10.2024. 4. In the case of Devender Kumar (Supra), it was, inter-alia, observed by the Court as under : “4. A perusal of the record indicates that the vehicle indeed has been purchased from one M/s Crystal Toyota from Delhi. The requisite notification dated 02.03.2023, inter alia, provides as under:- "Provided further the motor vehicles in Column no. 2 against serial no. 1, 2 and 4 of the table shall be given 100 percent exemption of tax specified in Column no. (3), (4) and (5), for Electric Vehicles (EV) purchased and registered in Uttar Pradesh." 5. A perusal of the above provision of the exemption notification reveals that twin conditions for the purpose of grant of exemption are required to exist, i.e., purchase and registration of vehicle in Uttar Pradesh. 6. Admittedly, the vehicle has not been purchased from Uttar Pradesh and consequently, the claim made for exemption and refund by the petitioner cannot be countenanced. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the issue, as raised, is covered by the order in Devender Kumar (Supra). 6. In view of the above, following the order in Devender Kumar (Supra), the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 P.Sri./Sharad (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad