Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Chhattisgarh/
  4. 2024/
  5. August

Hari Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Decided on 30 August 2024• Citation: WPC/4245/2024• High Court of Chhattisgarh
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                                            1 / 4                                   
                                                         2024:CGHC:33226            
                                                                     NAFR           
                        HIGH COURT  OF  CHHATTISGARH   AT BILASPUR                  
                                     WPC  No. 4245 of 2024                          
                  1. Hari Singh S/o Man Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Kelo Vihar Colony Sonu
                    Dhaba, Tihalirampur Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ... Petitioners    
                                           Versus                                   
                  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Raipur,
                    District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh                                 
                  2. Commissioner Transport Department Raipur                       
                  3. District Transport Officer Raigarh                             
                                                                ... Respondents     
               For Petitioner   : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate                   
               For Respondent-State : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate  
                           SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge               
                                        ORDER  ON BOARD                             
                    30 /08/2024                                                     
                    1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-
                               “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be          
                               pleased to direct the respondent authorities to      
                               refund of the excess payment of Tax which has        
                               been taken two times for the same time and for       
                               the same Vehicle.                                    
                               10.2 Cost of the petition may also be granted to     
                               the petitioners.                                     
                               10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court      
                               deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted     
                               to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.”     
     Digitally signed                                                               
     by BALRAM                                                                      
     PRASAD                                                                         
     DEWANGAN                                                                       
     Date: 2024.09.04                                                               
     11:07:37 +0530                                                                 

                                            2 / 4                                   
                    2. With the consent of the parties, this case is heard finally. 
                    3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
                      purchased a Horse (engine) and Trailor from Bilaspur. The Motor Vehicle
                      was temporarily registered at Registering Authority District – Bilaspur after
                      depositing the requisite fees and quarterly tax for Horse (engine) bearing
                      Chasis No. MAT828048P2H20564 for the amount of Rs. 1950/- vide
                      Cheque No. CG10D23090002774 dated 15.09.2023 for a period from
                      01.09.2023 to 29.02.2024 and for the Trailor bearing Chasis No.
                      SML50220823, the petitioner paid the tax of Rs. 18,800/- vide Cheque
                      No. CG10D23090003914 dated 22.09.2023 for a period for 31.08.2023 to
                      31.01.2024. Accordingly, the total amount of tax was paid to the tune of
                      Rs. 20,750/-. Copy of the tax receipt is also enclosed as Annexure P/2 &
                      P/3.                                                          
                    4. He submits that the petitioner is resident of District Raigarh. Petitioner
                      took the Horse & Trailor from Bilaspur to Raigarh where, he applied for its
                      permanent registration. At the time of registration of motor vehicle at
                      District Transport Office, Raigarh, petitioner has again paid the tax of Rs.
                      10,800/-. As the petitioner has paid quarterly tax at D.T.O. Bilaspur and
                      also at D.T.O. Raigarh, the petitioner has deposited the tax amount twice,
                      however, as per law, petitioner has to pay the quarterly tax only once at
                      either of the District Transport Office and therefore, the Respondent No. 3
                      be directed to refund the extra tax paid by the petitioner for the quarter
                      from September 2023 to February, 2024. He also contended that in the
                      identical writ petition bearing WPC No. 2508/2024 Hari Singh Vs. State
                      of Chhattisgarh & 02 Ors., the respondent/State has filed its reply in
                      which, respondents therein have made an averment that the excess tax
                      paid by the petitioner therein will be adjusted in accordance with the
                      provision under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Motorvehicle Karadhan

                                            3 / 4                                   
                      Adhiniyam, 1991 and rules framed thereunder and therefore, the
                      petitioner is also entitled for the same consideration.       
                    5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/State do not
                      dispute the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and would submit
                      that there is provision for refund of excess tax paid by any of the owner of
                      the vehicle. However, it can be adjusted in further tax liability upon the
                      petitioner. He do not dispute the submission of the counsel for the
                      petitioner based on the reply submitted by respondents/State in the case
                      of Hari Singh (Supra).                                        
                    6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
                      placed on record as also, the copy of the reply placed before this Court by
                      counsel for the petitioner.                                   
                    7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of Hari
                      Singh (Supra), grievance of the petitioner therein was that the petitioner
                      cannot be held liable for depositing the tax twice for the same quarter
                      before different District Transport Authorities and the tax which has been
                      paid in excess is either to be refunded or to be adjusted in the next
                      quarter of tax liability. In the reply placed before this Court in the case of
                      Hari Singh (Supra), the respondent/State has stated that the excess tax
                      paid by the petitioner will be adjusted in the next quarter. The relevant
                      portion of the reply is extracted below: -                    
                               “5. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted an      
                               application for refund of the excess payment of      
                               tax in  prescribed format. Upon due                  
                               consideration of the application of the petitioner,  
                               it is submitted that as per the provisions of the    
                               Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1991        
                               as per First Schedule No. 5 Goods Carrier 2 (A)      
                               the motor vehicle tax of first quarter in respect    
                               to the Vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 13        
                               AW 7332 is Rs. 10,800/- and as per Rule 14 of        
                               the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act,         
                               1991 the tax which is paid in excess can be          
                               adjusted for the next quarter and accordingly,       

                                            4 / 4                                   
                               the excess amount of the petitioner has been         
                               adjusted for the next 5 months i.e. from the         
                               month of September to January, 2025.                 
                               6. In view of the above submissions the instant      
                               petition as framed and filed by the petitioner has   
                               now become infructuous and therefore, the            
                               same deserves to be dismissed as the                 
                               grievance putforth by way of the present petition    
                               has been redressed as the amount which has           
                               been paid by the petitioner in excess has been       
                               adjusted for the next quarter upto January,          
                               2025.”                                               
                    8. In the aforementioned facts of the case, instead of keeping this writ
                      petition pending, seeking reply from the respondents in this case, I find it
                      appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage, directing the
                      Respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner, and if the
                      Respondent No. 3 comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has
                      deposited excess tax than that, for which he is liable to pay for the period
                      as claimed, the Respondent No. 3 shall adjust the excess tax paid by the
                      petitioner in the further quarter of tax to be paid by him. Let the decision
                      be taken by the Respondent No. 3 in accordance with the provisions of
                      the Chhattisgarh Motorvehicle Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 and rules
                      framed thereunder in accordance with law, keeping in mind the stand
                      taken by State in their reply in WP (C) No. 2508/2024, expeditiously,
                      preferably within a period of 03 weeks from the date of the receipt of the
                      order.                                                        
                    9. With the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition is
                      disposed of.                                                  
                                                           Sd/-                     
                                                    (Parth Prateem Sahu)            
                                                          Judge                     
                    Balram