1 2025:CGHC:40252 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 127 of 2021 Rungta College of Engineering and Technology Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh Village Kurud, P. S. Jamul Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 490024, through Sonal Rungta, Secretary, S/o Santosh Rungta, A/o 45 Years Village Kurud, P. S. Jamul Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh 490024, ... Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Transport Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Regional Transport Officer Transport Department, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Taxing Authority Transport Department, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 4. Competent Authority Transport Flying Squad Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Mrs. Surya Kanwalkar Dangi, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN Date: 2025.08.12 15:11:48 +0530 2 11.08.2025 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner/College for the following reliefs:- "(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the demand notices (Annexure-P/1) which are computer generated sheets for payment of road tax on buses bearing No.CG07 ZC 0197 and CG08 ZG 4023 amounting Rs.1,05,700/- and Rs.1,54,020/- respectively as being illegal and bad in law. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 23.07.2021 detaining the vehicle No.CG07 E 0621 (Annexure-P/2) as being illegal and without any authority of law. (iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner." 2. Mrs. Surya Kanwalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner College is having about 50 buses for the use of students across the city of Durg and Raipur. She submits that at the relevant time vehicles (buses) bearing Registration No. CG08 ZG 4023 and CG07 ZC 0197 were not running and had become obsolete and an intimation in this regard was duly given to respondent No.4. She submits that in the year 2017, when the respondents/ Authorities have inspected the college of the petitioner, they without affording any opportunity of hearing as 3 required under Section 8 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (fort short the “Adhiniyam 1991”) have levied tax on the said two buses by way of computer generated slips vide Ex.P-1 for the period 2015 to 2016 amounting to Rs.1,54,020/- and Rs.1,05,700/-, in aggregate Rs.2,59,720/-. She further submits that for recovery of the said tax, the respondents/Authorities have detained different vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No.CG07 E 0621 vide Ex.P-2 which is illegal and bad in law. She submits that without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity of hearing the respondents/Authorities have issued the inappropriate taxation demand and wrongly detained another vehicle of the petitioner, therefore, the action of the respondents/Authorities is completely against the principle of natural justice. In support of her contention, she places reliance in the matter of Chandrashekhar Vs. State of CG and Ors [(2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1047] and submits that in the said case, similar issue has been considered by this Court. In view of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to quash the impugned taxation demand (Ex.P-1) and also to quash the subsequent order of detention of another vehicle vide Ex.P-2. 3. Ms. Anuradha Jain, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposes the aforesaid submission and submits that against the impugned taxation orders there is efficacious alternative remedy of 4 appeal and revision exist which is provided under Section 20 of the Adhiniyam 1991. Therefore, this petition in the present the form is not maintainable and same deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection. 5. In the present case, it is an admitted position that for default of tax payment, the concerned respondent/Authority has seized another vehicle of the petitioner bearing vehicle No. CG07 E 0621 by order dated 23.07.2021 (Ex.P-2). At this stage, learned State counsel fails to demonstrate as to how the said action of the Authority is justifiable. The action of the Authority with regard to detaining of another vehicle on account of non payment of road tax on different buses is not permissible in the eye of law. 6. Further, the procedure for filing of declaration and determination of tax payable is prescribed under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam 1991. For the sake of brevity Section 8 is reproduced hereunder:- Filing of declaration and determination of tax payable.- (1) Every owner, who is liable lo pay the tax under this Act shall file a declaration with the Taxation Authority together with the proof of the payment of the tax which he appears to be liable to pay in respect of such vehicle in such form and within such time as may be prescribed. (2) When tiny motor vehicle in respect of which tax has been paid is altered in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to become a motor vehicle in respect of which higher rate of tax is payable, the owner of such vehicle shall file an additional declaration with the Taxation Authority together 5 with the certificate of registration and the proof of the payment of difference of tax which he appears lo be liable to pay in respect of such vehicle, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of the declaration under sub-section (1) or the additional declaration under sub-section (2) as the case may be, the Taxation Authority shall, after making such enquiry as it deems fit and alter giving to the owner an opportunity of being heard, determine, by an order in writing, the tax payable by the owner and intimate the same to him in such form and within such time as may be prescribed. (4) Where the owner fails to file a declaration required under sub-section (1) or (2) the Taxation Authority may, on the basis of information available with it and after giving to the owner an opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing, determine the amount of tax payable by such owner suo motu and intimate the same to him in such form and within such lime as may be prescribed. (5) On determination of the tax payable under sub-section (3) or (4) as the case may be, by the Taxation Authority, the difference of the amount of tax payable and the amount of tax paid shall as the case may be, be paid by or refunded to the owner in a manner applicable to the payment or refund of tax under this Act and rules. (6) Where the owner files a false declaration the taxation authority shall, after giving the owner an opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing, impose a penalty not exceeding twice the amount of tax determined under sub-section (3). Explanation.- "Alteration in a motor vehicle" includes an acquisition, surrender or non-use of or any change in a permit by which the vehicle is covered.” 6 7. A reading of Section 8 (4) of the Adhiniyam, 1991 clearly brings out the fact that the present case is squarely falls within the ambit of sub section (4) of section 8 for first initiating a proceeding for determination of tax payable even in a case where tax is not deposited or any tax has been partly deposited. The provision for grant of opportunity of hearing before determining the tax payable by the petitioner is also envisaged in the said Section. The said mandatory provision does not appear to have been followed in the instant case as the respondent/Authority without assigning any cogent reason levied the tax through computer generated slip and not granted any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing such tax order. Therefore, the tax slips (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent/Authority is clearly in violation of principle of natural justice. In the circumstances, the submission of State counsel with regard to alternative remedy and maintainability of the petition is not acceptable and the same is hereby rejected. 8. For the foregoing, this court is of the considered view that the provisions of sub section (4) of section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1991, has not been followed by the respondents/Authorities while issuing the impugned tax slips vide Annexure-P/1 in connection with vehicle No.CG08 ZG 4023 and vehicle No.CG07 ZC 0197 and thus the same are held to be not sustainable and are hereby set- aside/quashed. Further, the subsequent order vide Annexure-P/2 7 of detention of different vehicle bearing No.CG07 E 0621 on account of default of payment of different buses is also not in accordance with law and thus the same is also quashed. 9. However, the Respondent/Authority is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the Petitioner, as is envisaged under section 8 of the Adhiniyam, 1991 in order to determine any tax evasion or under assessment made. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay