1 2026:CGHC:8774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 215 of 2018  Gmmco Ltd Through Amit Khera Aged 41 Years, S/o Sr. Pradeep Khera, Sr. Manger Gmmco Ltd, Branch Office, First Floor, Alaska Corporate, Jeevan Vihar, Telibandha, P.S. Telebandha Tahsil Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Dept. Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Transport Commissioner Chhattisgarh Transport Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Civil And Revenue District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPT No. 221 of 2018  Gmmco Ltd. Through Amit Khera S/o Sr Praddep Khera Aged About 41 Years Sr Manager Gmmco Ltd. Branch Office, First Floor, Alaska Corporate, Jeevan Vihar, Telibandha, P.S. Telibandha Tahsil Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Dept. Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Transport Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Transport Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPT No. 222 of 2018  Gmmco Limited Through Amit Khera Aged 41 Years, S/o Sr Pradeep Khera, Sr Manager Gmmco Limited, Branch Office, First Floor, Alaska Corporate, Jeevan Vihar, Telibandha, Police Station - Telebandha, Tahsil Raipur, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.02.24 14:13:57 +0530 2 Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Transport Commissioner Chhattisgarh Transport Department Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Civil And Revenue District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate For State/respondents : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.02 .2026 1. Heard on admission 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur dated 16.01.2018 and orders passed by the appellate authority dated 29.05.2018, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for refund of life time tax has been rejected. 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a registered company engaged in leasing and sell of earthmoving machines and it also provides services for entire Caterpillar range of machines, such as Backhoe Loaders, Wheel Loaders, Hydraulic Excavators, Graders, Compactors, Pavers, Dump Trucks and others. Some of the machines manufactured by the petitioner were registered as motor vehicle. Following machines were registered as motor vehicle bearing registration Nos. CG 04 L 3433, CG 04 DT 8099 and CG 04 L 3212, which were manufactured in the year 2014, 2013 and 2014 respectively, and were being operated in the State of Chhattisgarh for which life time tax was paid by the petitioner to the sum of Rs. 1,24,755/-, 3,92,945/- and Rs. 7,55,760/- respectively. The vehicles/machines are registered with the petitioner. Aforestated vehicles were being operated in 3 state of M.P. at the relevant time, therefore, petitioner applied for NOC, in turn, the petitioner was forced to pay life time tax for aforesaid vehicles to obtain No Objection Certificates. The petitioner paid life time tax, and thereafter, NOCs were issued on 03.05.2017, 08.08.2016 and 18.09.2017 respectively. After expiry of two months, the petitioner moved applications for refund of life time tax according to the provisions of Rule 14 of Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred as “Rule, 1991”). The applications so moved by the petitioner were rejected by order dated 16.01.2018. The petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and appeals were also dismissed on 29.05.2018, against those orders these petitions have been preferred. 4. Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate would argue that the petitioner is registered as owner of the aforementioned vehicles. He would contend that the petitioner was compelled to deposit life time tax to obtain NOC, and in said compulsion, the petitioner deposited life time tax on 28.04.2017, 30.06.2016 and 18.09.2017 respectively. He would submit that the petitioner moved applications for refund of life time tax according to the provisions of Rule – 14 of Rule, 1991, but those applications were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur. He would submit that the authority concerned misconstrued the provisions of Rule – 14. He would submit that applications were preferred within prescribed period of limitation, and therefore, appropriate orders should have been passed by the said authority. He would contend that the appellate authority affirmed the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority. Mr. Sharma would submit that the vehicles were removed from State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2014, whereas, amendment was inserted in the Rules of Adhiniyam, 1991 in the year 2016, therefore, the subsequent provisions would not 4 apply retrospectively. He would pray to allow these petitions. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submission advanced by Mr. Sharma. Ms. Jain would submit that to get the life time tax refund, the applicant is required to move application within 2 months from the date when motor vehicle was permanently removed from the State. She would submit that the petitioner removed some of his vehicles from State of Chhattisgarh, and therefore, he applied for NOC. She would contend that Schedule – 2 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1991(hereinafter referred as “Act, 1991”) was amended and rate of life time tax was first time inserted, earlier the owners of the vehicles were required to pay tax quarterly. This amendment was inserted with effect from 15.02.2016. Ms. Jain would submit that the petitioner was never compelled to pay life time tax and with intent to obtain NOC, life time tax was paid by the petitioner according to Schedule – 2 of the Act, 1991. She would submit that the petitioner moved applications after expiry of two months from date of issuance of NOCs, therefore, the competent authority rightly rejected applications of the petitioner and appellate authority affirmed those orders. She would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is owner of the vehicles mentioned herein-above. It removed those vehicles from State of Chhattisgarh and applied for NOC. According to Rules of 1991, he was required to pay life time tax as per Schedule – 2 of the Act, 1991. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has not placed any notice issued by the department to pay life time tax. It appears 5 that the petitioner willfully deposited the life time tax to obtain NOCs. The NOCs were issued to the petitioners on 03.05.2017, 08.08.2016 and 18.09.2017 respectively. 8. The petitioner should have moved applications for refund of tax according to the provisions of Rule 14 of Rule, 1991. The petitioner applied after expiry of two months; therefore, the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur rejected applications. 9. Rule 14 (5) (C) of Rules, 1991 reads as under :- “Provided that no refund shall be granted - (c) if the application for refund of life time tax is not presented within two months from the date on which the motor vehicle is permanently removed from the State, destroyed or converted or used as a transport vehicle; 10. The petitioner preferred appeal against orders passed by the Regional Transport Authorities and those appeals were also dismissed. 11. Taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 14 (5) (C) of Adhiniyam, 1991 and further the petitioner was never compelled by the department to deposit life time tax, In my opinion, the authorities concerned have not committed any error of law while rejecting the applications moved by the petitioner for refund of life time tax. Accordingly, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant