1 ( 2026:HHC:14274-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4784 of 2021 Date of decision: 29.04.2026. Narender Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents. Corum Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Bindra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3-State. Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following main substantive reliefs:- “i) That in view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, all the aforementioned impugned notices issued against the Petitioner, order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the District Collector Bilaspur in which directions to the respondent No.3 for recovery of Rs.1,02,000/- as arrear of Land Revenue from the movable property of the Petitioner has been passed, along with the impugned recovery proceedings qua the vehicle, bearing registration No. HP- 01B-0145, initiated against the Petitioner by the Respondent No.2 and 3 i.e. Annexure P-7 (Colly) as a whole may very kindly be directed to withdrawn, quashed and set aside and the attachment of the land of the Petitioner comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 13/13, share 50/287 total measuring 2-10 bigha, attached vide Rojnamcha Rapat no. 81 dated 09.10.2018 vide Annexure P-7 (colly) in pursuance of the aforementioned order dated 13.04.2018 and in furtherance of the aforesaid recovery proceedings may also be ordered to 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 ( 2026:HHC:14274-DB ) be cancelled as illegal, null and void and it may kindly be declared to be free from any encumbrance of the aforesaid recovery proceedings in the interest of law and justice; & ii) The respondents may very kindly be directed to reimburse the amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the Petitioner vide Anneuxre P-20 and he may also awarded compensation for the sufferings on the part of the respondents.” 2. The landed property of the petitioner has been attached for non-payment of the demand raised by the respondents vide notice dated 21.10.2015 (Annexure P-3), issued by the Regional Transport Office, Bilaspur (H.P.), for recovery of Rs. 6,750/- plus penalty. 3. Undisputably, the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 12.03.2025 passed in CWP No. 4781 of 2021, titled Narender Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., has set aside identical notices issued against the petitioner therein by respondents –State. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- “The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following relief:- “i. That in view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, all the aforementioned impugned notices i.e. Annexure P-3, P-4, P-7 & P-8 qua the tax recovery of the vehicle, bearing registration no. HP-01B-0240, issued against the Petitioner by the Respondent No 2 & 3 may very kindly be directed to withdrawn, quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice.” 2. A perusal of the notices of recovery against which the petitioner is aggrieved would go to show that such recoveries are sought to be effected only on the basis of audit objections. What is more surprising is that even the nature of the amount to be recovered, has not been specified in such notices. 3. It is only from the documents appended with the petition that we can gather that such amount is allegedly to be due and payable from the petitioner towards the passenger tax or goods tax. 4. Be that as it may. It is more than settled that no recoveries can be effected solely on the basis of audit objections. It is for the authority concerned to specify the audit objections and merely because it has not been able to satisfy the audit authorities, is no ground to further fastened the liability of penalty upon the petitioner. 3 ( 2026:HHC:14274-DB ) 5. In the given facts and circumstances, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned notices Annexures P-3, P- 4, P-7 and P-8 qua the tax recovery of vehicle bearing registration No.HP-01B-0240 against the petitioner, are set aside. However, this order shall not come in the way of the respondents, in case they choose to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner, but the same would only be done after satisfying itself with regard to legality, propriety and correctness of the audit objections. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.” 4. For the purpose of comparison on behalf of the petitioner, copies of notices in response in the aforesaid CWP No. 4781 of 2021 have also been placed on record as Annexures P-3, P-4, P-7 and P-8 along with CMP No. 9137 of 2026. 5. The landed property of the petitioner has been attached in sequel to the impugned notice dated 21.10.2015 (Annexures P-3) undated (Annexure P-4) and dated 20.11.2018 (Annexure P-6) of the instant petition issued to the petitioner. 6. A perusal of the notice issued in the present petition and the notice issued in Narender Kumar’s case (supra), placed on record along with CMP No. 9137 of 2026, depicts that the notices are identical in nature to the notices in reference in CWP No. 4781 of 2021. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed in CWP No. 4781 of 2021. Therefore, the findings returned in the judgment dated 12.03.2025, passed in CWP No. 4781 of 2021 are mutantis mutandis applicable to the present case for all intents and proposal. 7. In view of above, the impugned notice (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside. As the foundation for issuing notices 4 ( 2026:HHC:14274-DB ) Annexures P-4 and P-6 and proceeding Annexure P-7 (Colly) as well attachment of the landed property has been quashed and set aside, these notices, proceeding and impugned the attachment are also quashed and set aside. 8. However, it is made clear that the present order shall not come in the way of the respondents in case they refuse to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner but the same shall be undertaken only after satisfying the requirements of legality, propriety, preference and audit objections. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms along with pending applications, if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge. 29th April, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez)