1 CGHC010286232020 2026:CGHC:41169 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 115 of 2021 1 - Smt. Shabnam W/o Late Abdul Shafiq Aged About 50 Years R/o. Near Sahara Battery, Moudhapara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Transport Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Taxation Officer And Regional Transport Officer, Banjari Mata Mandir, Rawabhata, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Sheikh Wasim S/o Abbas Khan, R/o Behind Video World, Moudhapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Abbas Khan S/o Late Sirajuddin R/o. Behind Video World, Moudhapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Sanjana Ahirwar, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/09/2026 1. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2026.09.23 12:02:59 +0530 2 “1-That the Hon'ble court may be kind enough to call the records of the respondents. 2-That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to issue a writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions and to quash the Annexure P-1 and direct the respondent no. 1 to 3 to proceed as per law and to reassess the Motor Vehicle Tax. 3-That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to refund the amount of Rs. 2,95,000/- as bifurcated by the impugned order with interest. 4-That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to issue any appropriate writ, order, direction as deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in question was given on lease to respondent No.4 for the period from 01.06.2008 to 31.05.2010 and, during the said period, the liability to pay the motor vehicle tax was upon the lessee. She further submits that respondent No.5 had admitted that he had purchased and was using the vehicle in question and had not paid the motor vehicle tax for a considerable period. She, therefore, submits that the liability could not have been fastened upon the husband of the petitioner and that the amount of Rs.2,95,000/- is liable to be refunded. 3. Learned State counsel has no objection if the petitioner approaches the concerned authority along with her reply and relevant documents. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the memo dated 28.06.2019, it appears that the concerned respondent authority has directed the petitioner to submit 3 his reply along with the relevant documents in order to establish his case and to avail the opportunity of being heard in respect of the tax to be imposed upon and the petitioner was also directed to appear personally or through her advocate. As such, there is no anomaly in the matter. The petitioner is at liberty to appear before the concerned authority along with relevant documents so that the concerned authority may decide the case in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to approach the concerned authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and in turn, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the matter in accordance with law within a further period of 30 days. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Priyanka