- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the Demand Notice dated 22-11-2002 (Annexure '5') for a sum of Rs. 54,320 as an arrear of passenger-tax, issued by the respondent No. 3.
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner owned a public vehicle Bus No. U. P.-80-E-9118. The respondent No. 3 assessed the passenger passenger-tax and put in a demand to the petitioner by Demand Notice dated 23-5-2001 (Annexure '3') for Rs. 31,000. As the said amount has not been paid, another Demand Notice dated 21-11-2002 (Annexure '5') was issued by the respondent No. 3 to deposit a sum of Rs. 54,320 as passenger-tax from 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2002. Petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to re-consider the whole case. The said representation has not yet been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as she had transferred the vehicle to the respondent No. 4 and signed all the documents for completing the formalities of transfer, even if the vehicle has not been transferred in his name, the petitioner cannot be fasten with the liability of the passenger- tax on the said vehicle, and thus, the Demand Notices are liable to be quashed. And in the alternative, this Court may issue a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner and till the representation is decided they may not make recovery from her.
(3.) ON the contrary, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the petition submitting that as the vehicle has not yet been transferred in the name of the respondent No. 4, petitioner is liable to pay the passenger-tax. More so, Demand Notice cannot be challenged in writ Court as it is appealable under the provisions of Section 18 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Passenger- Taxation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1997 ). The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;