Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55664-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1632 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Bilas Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.C.S.C., Nimai Dass Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the recovery certificate dated 15.09.2021 issued by the respondents in relation to the road tax of the vehicle in question. 2. Submission has been made that the petitioner had purchased a vehicle in the year 2009 with the aid and assistance of Sri Ram Transport Financial Company Ltd. On 21.10.2019, on account of incomplete documents, the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the police authority P.S. Dheena, District Chandauli, which was later released on 17.10.2020 after the order of Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli. Thereafter on 18.05.2022, The Finance Company has forcibly and illegally taken away the vehicle of the petitioner. However, on 15.09.2021, respondent no. 2, Tehsildar Sadar issued impugned recovery certificate dated 15.09.2021 demanding Rs. 1,44,294/- towards road tax. It is submitted that despite objection filed by the petitioner before the taxation authorities, the aspect of the liability to pay the tax has not been determined and now the recovery certificate has been issued to the petitioner, which is not justified. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others : (2022) 5 SCC 525, though the liability in case the vehicle is in possession of the Finance Company would be that of the Finance Company, however, the said aspect has to be determined by the competent authority and for that purpose, the petitioner has to approach the said authority appropriately. 4. Reference has been made to order in Sadashiv Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No. 33 of 2023) decided on 16.01.2023. 5. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has already approached the taxation authority and specifically raised the plea pertaining to the possession of the vehicle being that of the Finance Company. However, the issue continues to remain pending with the authority and the demand is sought to be enforced against the petitioner, which cannot be countenanced. 7. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. The petitioner shall appear before the authority on 30.04.2025 when the competent authority would decide the pending representation/assertions made by the petitioner pertaining to the action of the Finance Company and determine the liability to pay the tax in accordance with law. 8. Till such time the determination is made by the authority, appropriately in accordance with law, the recovery issued against the petitioner, vide demand dated 15.09.2021 shall remain suspended. 9. On the determination made by the taxation authority, the petitioner would be liable to make the payment and in case, he fails to make the payment within the stipulated time, the respondents would be free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Sandeep/Jyotsna (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad