Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6434-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 79 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Mishra, Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Nimai Dass (A.C.S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent no.2 to accept the amount of Rs.60,016 as road tax plus penalty w.e.f. 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2020 from the petitioner. 2. Submissions have been made that as the vehicle of the petitioner remained in possession of the financer for the period 24.11.2020 to 01.04.2023 and tax was being demanded from the petitioner contrary to law laid down in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited Vs. State of U.P. and others: (2022) 5 SCC 525. 3. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Tax No.8640 of 2023, which came to be decided on 27.07.2023 requiring the respondents to pass order on the pending representation. Whereafter on filing Contempt Application No.7873 of 2023, decided on 30.10.2023, order was passed on 10.11.2023, inter alia, demanding the tax and penalty of Rs.91,524/-. It is claimed that the petitioner was willing/is willing to deposit the said tax. However, the same has not been accepted and in evidence thereof, a communication dated 10.12.2023 (Annexure-5) has been placed on record. 4. Having gone through the material placed on record, we do not find any material to substantiate the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the respondents refusing to accept the amount of tax and penalty as ordered by order dated 10.11.2023, the representation dated 10.12.2023 (Annexure-5) is self serving, as the same does not bear any endorsement or receipt of the said representation regarding his willingness to deposit the amount of tax. Further, the petition has also been filed after more than one year since the passing of the order dated 10.11.2023, which also may be for the reasons other than what are sought to be adjudicated. 5. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to issue any direction to the respondents. In case, the petitioner is willing to deposit the amount, apparently there is no restriction in depositing the same with the respondents. 6. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 RK/SL (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad