1 2025:CGHC:43233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 240 of 2021 Mahashakti Transport Through Its Proprietor Manish Mishra, Ward No. 07, Bazarpara, Koriya Colliery, Chirmiri, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Taxation Officer and District Transport Officer, Koriya, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) 3 - South East Coalfield Limited, O/o General Manager, Chirmiri Area, P.O. West Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta and Ms. Aditi Joshi, Advocates For Respondent s 1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Government Advocate Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 26/08/2025 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is against the Demand Notice(s) dated 15.10.2020 (Annexure P/1), whereby the Taxation Officer- cum-District Transport Officer, Koriya (CG)/respondent No.2 has imposed tax at the rate of 180/- instead of Rs.30/- and has also levied a penalty applicable to Private Vehicles instead of that applicable to educational institution buses. The details are as follows : S. N. Vehicle Number Tax Penalty Total 1 CG-16 H-0173 265200 329035 594235 2 CG-16 H-0185 175000 150546 330546 3 CG-16 H-0147 300900 394485 695385 4 CG-16 H-0137 270000 254700 524700 5 CG-16 H-0169 286600 363587 649587 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that through various work orders, respondent No.3 hired buses on a rental basis to provide school bus facilities in various areas and these buses were used solely for transporting students (children of the employees) and staff of respondent No.3 without any charge. Therefore, the demand for levy of tax on private vehicles is illegal. Hence, this petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the State/respondents 1 & 2, in their return, stated that the buses were operating/plying without any permit. Furthermore, the petitioner/bus owner did not possess the Certificate of Fitness for transport vehicle(s) and the lease was also not registered with the authorities. It has also been stated in the return that an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 20 of the Chhattisgarh Motoryan Adhiniyam, 1991, is available. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in WP No.4620/2005, which was decided by the order dated 14.10.2014, wherein the demand notice was set-aside as the rules of natural justice were given a complete go bye. They submit that in the present case, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the assessment of any tax. Furthermore, the State has failed to show any evidence that the buses are not being used for educational purposes. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that when a vehicle is used exclusively for transporting students or staff of an educational institution, as defined under Section 2(11) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and as clarified in the Circular dated 28.9.1992 issued by the concerned Department, taxation should be applied in accordance with the provisions applicable to educational institution buses and not as if it were a private vehicle. 4 5. Learned counsel for the State fairly admits on record that no opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the assessment order. However, he submits that the taxation was made in accordance with the applicable guidelines. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The petitioner has filed the relevant documents along with this petition showing that respondent No.3 hired the buses to facilitate the transportation of the employees’ children from the residential area to the educational institution free of charge. Therefore, as per the definition under Section 2(11) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the buses are being used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the educational institution. 8. Admittedly, there is no allegation by the Taxation Authority that the buses are being used for any purpose contrary to the said purpose. Furthermore, no opportunity of hearing was provided before issuing the Demand Notice(s). 9. It is well settled that where any civil or evil consequences ensue in any matter, the principles of nature justice must be followed (See: Union of India and another Vs. Guwahati Carbon Limited reported in (2012) 11 SCC 651). Therefore, the plea taken by the State regarding the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal does not bar the writ petition challenging an order passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, it is well established that when rules of natural 5 justice has been violated, the writ to challenge such action can be entertained. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that since the buses were used exclusively for educational purposes and the impugned Demand Notice(s) (Annexure P/1) was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the impugned Demand Notice(s) (Annexure P/1) is set-aside. 11. Nevertheless, the State would be at liberty to pass a fresh Assessment Order regarding the educational institution buses, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to deposit the undisputed amount of tax to the concerned Department with respect to the educational institution buses within the said period. 12. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna