# Sadashiv Dwivedi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 1079
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-16
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 33 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sadashiv-dwivedi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49699
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules ,
1998-Rule 18-Recovery citation issued on
account of motor vehicle tax-impugnedPetitioner
purchased
the
vehicle-it
was
hypothecated
with
M/s
Hinduja
Leyland
Finance Limited-vehicle was seized on account
of non payment in 2013-sold on 2015Petitioner had deposited the tax up till he had
the possession-financier is liable to pay the
tax-Petitioner filed an objection against the
recovery citation-objections are required to be
considered by the competent authority and
liability may be re-worked-.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs
St. of U.P. & ors., (2022) 5 SCC 525

## Text

2 All. Sadashiv Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1079

k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough about
his/her decision making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent
or
to
principles
of
incrementalism.

l. Reasons in support of decisions
must be cogent, clear and succinct. A
pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp
reasons' is not to be equated with a valid
decision making process.

m.
It
cannot
be
doubted
that
transparency is the sine qua non of restraint
on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency
in decision making not only makes the
judges and decision makers less prone to
errors but also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in
Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100
Harward Law Review 731-737).

n. Since the requirement to record
reasons emanates from the broad doctrine
of fairness in decision making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component
of human rights and was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19
EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs.
University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ
405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6
of European Convention of Human Rights
which requires, "adequate and intelligent
reasons
must
be
given
for
judicial
decisions".

o. In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in setting up
precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving
reasons for the decision is of the essence
and is virtually a part of "Due Process".

11. In view of the above binding
authorities and taking into account the fact
that the order impugned in the case is hand
is totally unreasoned, non speaking and
shows no application of mind, in our
considered opinion, the same cannot be
sustained.

12. As a result, the writ petition is
allowed. Impugned order dated March 11,
2019, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, is
hereby quashed with liberty to the authority
to proceed again against petitioner in
accordance with law.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 1079
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ Tax No. 33 of 2023

Sadashiv Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anurag Dubey, Sri Amit Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nimai Dass (Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel)

U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules ,
1998-Rule 18-Recovery citation issued on
account of motor vehicle tax-impugnedPetitioner
purchased
the
vehicle-it
was
hypothecated
with
M/s
Hinduja
Leyland
Finance Limited-vehicle was seized on account
of non payment in 2013-sold on 2015Petitioner had deposited the tax up till he had
the possession-financier is liable to pay the
tax-Petitioner filed an objection against the
recovery citation-objections are required to be
considered by the competent authority and
liability may be re-worked-.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs
St. of U.P. & ors., (2022) 5 SCC 525

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal , C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Recovery citation dated October 1,
2022 issued against the petitioner, on
account of motor vehicle tax, is under
challenge in the present petition.

2. The argument raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that he had
purchased a Tata Magic (small commercial
vehicle), bearing registration No. UP 90T
0839 on March 10, 2011. The same was
hypothecated with M/s Hinduja Leyland
Finance Limited. On account of default in
repayment of loan, the vehicle was seized by
the financier in the year 2013. It was
thereafter sold and on November 28, 2015, a
notice was received by the petitioner for
payment of balance loan amount. Upto the
date the petitioner was in possession of the
vehicle in question, he had deposited the tax.
After possession of the vehicle was taken by
the financier, the liability of the tax cannot be
put on the petitioner as in that case the
financier will be liable to pay the tax. The
aforesaid facts have been stated by the
petitioner in the objections filed to the
recovery citation, however, not considered. In
support of the argument reliance has been
placed upon judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra
Financial Services Ltd. vs. State of U.P.
and others, (2022) 5 SCC 525.

3. Learned counsel for the State
submitted that in terms of Rule 18 of the
U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the
petitioner was required to inform the
Taxation Officer about the fact that the
possession of the vehicle in question was
taken by the financier so as to enable the
authority to fasten the liability on the
financier. As the petitioner had failed to do
so, demand was raised against him.
However, in case, he points out the details
to the Taxation Officer, the issue will be
examined in the light of judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahindra
and Mahindra Financial Services' case
(supra).

4. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties, we find merit in the
submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner as he stated that possession of the
vehicle in question was taken by the
financier in May 2013 and in view of the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Mahindra
and
Mahindra
Financial
Services' case (supra) the liability for
payment of tax thereafter cannot be
fastened
on
the
petitioner.
Relevant
paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:

"In view of the above discussion
and for the reasons stated above, it is held
that a financier of a motor vehicle/transport
vehicle in respect of which a hire-purchase
or lease or hypothecation agreement has
been entered, is liable to tax from the date
of taking possession of the said vehicle
under the said agreement. If, after the
payment of tax, the vehicle is not used for a
month or more, then such an owner may
apply for refund under Section 12 of the
Act, 1997 and has to comply with all the
requirements for seeking the refund as
mentioned in Section 12, and on fulfilling
and/or complying with all the conditions
mentioned in Section 12(1), he may get the
refund to the extent provided in sub-
2 All. M/s. Pioneer Industries 485, Chhota Kaila, Scrap Market, PAC Chowk, Ghaziabad Vs.
 State of U.P. & Ors.
1081
section(1) of Section 12, as even under
Section 12(1), the owner/operator shall not
be entitled to the full refund but shall be
entitled to the refund of an amount equal to
one-third of the rate of quarterly tax or one
twelfth of the yearly tax, as the case may
be, payable in respect of such vehicle for
each thirty days of such period for which
such tax has been paid. However, only in a
case, which falls under sub-section(2) of
Section 12 and subject to surrender of the
necessary documents as mentioned in subsection(2) of Section 12, the liability to pay
the tax shall not arise, otherwise the
liability
to
pay
the
tax
by
such
owner/operator shall continue." (emphasis
supplied)

5. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules, the
petitioner had already filed objection
against the recovery citation on December
18, 2022 mentioning that possession of the
vehicle in question was taken by the
financer in May 2013. Subsequently, the
vehicle was sold by the financer. The
aforesaid objections are required to be
considered by the competent authority and
from the date of possession of the vehicle
was taken by the financer, the liability may
be re-worked out in terms of judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahindra
and Mahindra Financial Services' case
(supra). However, for any period prior to
that, if the tax has not been paid, the
petitioner shall be liable to pay the same.

 6. The writ petition is, accordingly,
disposed of and recovery citation against
the petitioner is quashed.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 1081
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2023

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ Tax No. 62 of 2023

M/s. Pioneer Industries 485, Chhota Kaila,
Scrap Market, PAC Chowk, Ghaziabad
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Praveen Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ankur Agarwal (S.C.)

Civil Law - U.P. Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017-Section 129 (1)(b)-Order passed
goods in transit seized- impugned-levy of
penalty u/s 129 (1)(b) not called for and not
justified-as it provides that where owner of the
goods comes forward for payment of penalty ,
the amount has to be two hundred percent of
the tax payable-but penalty has been levied to
the tune of hundred percent of the value of the
goods-impugned order set aside.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The order passed on GST MOV-06
dated January 7, 2023, vide which the
goods in transit were seized by the
authorities concerned, has been impugned
in the present writ petition. Further show
cause notice on GST MOV-07 and order
passed thereon on GST MOV-09 dated
January 11, 2023 are under challenge in the
present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the goods were accompanied
by proper documents. The owners of the
goods either are the consignors or the