1 2025:CGHC:52378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 90 of 2019 1 - Prandhar Agrawal S/o Atmanand Agrawal Aged About 66 Years R/o Agrawal Para, Arang, Police Station And Tahsil - Arang District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Road, Transport Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Regional Transport Officer (Rto) Regional Transport Office Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Transport Commissioner C-Block, 3rd Floor, Indirawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 28/10/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Jain & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.10.28 16:29:53 +0530 2 Others1, (in bunch cases) decided on 20.04.2018, in which it has been held as under :- “31. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said proviso is not attracted in the present case and particularly to the levy impugned as it was applicable to a case where the tax was paid prior to the commencement of the Act of 1991 w.e.f. 21.09.1991 and life time tax paid as specified in the Second Schedule was liable to be deducted. In the instant case, provision for levy of life time tax came into force w.e.f. 15.02.2016, but the legislature has deliberately and consciously omitted to insert any provision like proviso (i) to sub-section 5(2) of the Act of 1991 directing deduction of quarterly tax paid by the petitioners from the date of purchase till 15.02.2016 i.e. date of coming into force of the Act of 2016 imposing life time tax on the crane and mechanical excavator vehicles, therefore, to hold the life time tax payable by the petitioners would be contrary to law. 32. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated discussion, it is held that amendment to the Second Schedule to the Act of 1991 w.e.f. 15.02.2016 inserting entry No. 8 in Part-I of Second Schedule imposing life time tax on crane and mechanical excavator vehicles is intended to operate prospectively. Consequently, the respondents are directed to accept quarterly tax from the petitioners in accordance with law and act of the respondents directing recovery of life time tax is unauthorized in law and they are restrained from recovering life time tax from the JCB owned by the petitioners.” 2. In view of the above judgment, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents/competent authority to decide the representation Annexure P/4 filed by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order, in terms of decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Yashwant Kumar Jain (supra) subject to verification of the 1 WP(T) No.69 of 2017 3 amount deposited by the petitioner vide Annexure P/3, dated 01.02.2017. 3. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of and interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi