AMITAVA LALA, RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) BY means of the present writ petition, petitioners are challenging the various order of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer/Taxation Officer (A), Aligarh dated 11.10.2008, by which the claim of the petitioners for surrender of the vehicles have been re­jected and road tax and additional tax have been demanded.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioners have surrendered their vehicles and furnished Form F as required under Rule 22 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 and also surrendered the various documents. As per the claim of the respondent that on the inspection dated 5.9.2008 the vehicles were not found at the place declared by the petitioners in Form F and, therefore the claim of the petitioners for the surrender has been rejected and the demand has been raised. Learned Standing Counsel has raised the preliminary objection that against the impugned orders, petitioners have alternative remedy by way of appeal under section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation of the respondent is absolutely wrong. He submitted that in reply filed against the notice, petitioners have categorically stated that no inspection was made on 5.9.2008, therefore, the rejection of the claim is wholly unjustified. He sub­mitted that Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat and others v. Kaushikbhai K. Patel and another AIR 2000 SC 2175, has held that mere apprehension of clandestine use of a vehicle cannot be a ground for imposing tax on omnibuses which are not put on road or kept away from use. He further submitted that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Daya Shanker Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2008 (2) ALJ 571 (DB)=2008 (71) ALR 30 (Sum) has held that if any order passed by the taxation officer under section 12 of the Act with respect to such refund is not to the satisfaction of such person, he may file appeal under section 18 of the Act and, therefore, against the impugned order no appeal lies under section 18 of the Act.;