Non-use exemption under motor vehicle tax law fails without proof of surrender conditions and documentary support for theft.

Non-use of a vehicle and alleged theft of the permit did not, on the stated record, justify quashing the passenger tax and additional tax demand under the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997. The pleadings and surrender application did not disclose theft or loss, and no FIR or comparable proof was produced to support the exemption plea. The appellate authority was entitled to hold that surrender for non-use required compliance with the statutory conditions, including production of the relevant documents, and those conditions were not met. The statute also contemplated refund only where the prescribed conditions were established, so no interference with the demand or appellate order was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of passenger tax and additional tax, and the appellate order rejecting the petitioner's challenge, were liable to be quashed on the ground that the vehicle had allegedly become unusable and the permit was said to have been stolen.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the tax demand and the appellate rejection under the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997. The asserted basis for exemption from tax was non-use of the vehicle and alleged theft of the permit. The record, however, showed no disclosure of theft or loss in the surrender application, and no first information report or comparable material was produced to substantiate that plea. The appellate authority had also found that surrender of the vehicle for non-use required compliance with the statutory conditions, including production of the relevant documents, and that those conditions were not fulfilled. The Court further noted that the statute provided a remedy of refund where the conditions under the relevant provision were established.

Conclusion: The challenge to the tax demand and the appellate order failed, and no interference was warranted.

---