1 2025:CGHC:4278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5715 of 2024 1 - Sbj Projects Pvt. Ltd S/o Suresh Kumar Bansal, Aged About 40 Years , R/o H. No. 15 Friends Colony, Near Dhimrapur Chowk , Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Transport Department Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Transport OfÏcer Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vikram Kumar Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.01.23 23:03:32 +0530 2 23.01.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent to consider the application moved by the petitioner for refund of excess payment of tax in prescribed form. The petitioner submitted the application with the contention that the petitioner has purchased the loader vehicle from Raigarh vide Registration No. CG 13 D 6720 and paid the life time motor vehicle tax at DTO, Raigarh of Rs. 1,45,632/- for the period 29.12.2016 to 28.12.2031. After sometime the vehicle was not in use, for which the District Transport OfÏcer, Raigarh has issued a certificate to destroy the vehicle permanently and the registration was cancelled on 08.11.2022. On 03.09.2024, the petitioner has applied for refund of tax paid in DTO, Raigarh in prescribed form, but the respondent authority has not considered the same and for which the petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking a directions towards the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent/State by referring the (Annexure R/1) in the reply submits that the application filed bythe petitioner has been considered and the same has been rejected on the ground of delay and the order passed by the DTO is appealable under Rule 18(1) of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1991, (for short, ‘the Act 1991’). 3. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the order (Annexure R/1) dated 09.01.2025. 4. From perusal of order dated 09.01.2025, the application filed by the petitioner has been considered and the final order has been passed 3 by the District Transport OfÏcer. From the order itself, it is very clear that the order is appealable under Rule 18(1) of the Act, 1991. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, he may approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal under the prescribed Rule under the Act, 1991. 5. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib