JUDGMENT
Prakash Tatia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the goods of the petitioner were seized by the offence of the Commercial Taxes Department when the goods were in vehicle no GJ-12/U-6192. The driver of the vehicle admitted his guilt before the assessing authority, upon which the assessing authority passed the order on 14th Oct., 2003 levying tax and penalty.
3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the assessment order was passed against Narendra Bhai @ Lal Bhai S/o Mehtab Singh and the transporter in compliance of the assessment order dated 14th Oct., 2003 paid the amount as demanded by the assessment order dated 14th Oct., 2003. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner in turn, paid that tax amount to the transporter and, therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 14th Oct., 2003 by which the assessing authority assessed the tax and penalty under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Undisputedly, the assessment order was passed by the assessing authority against Narendra Bhai @ Lal Bhai and not against the petitioner. The said Narendra Bhai @ Lal Bhai is not aggrieved against the order dated 14th Oct., 2003. The transporter took the liability of his driver upon himself and paid the said tax amount as assessed by the assessing authority vide order dated 14th Oct., 2003. The transporter is also not aggrieved against the order dated 14th Oct., 2003. None of the Government Department recovered or directed the petitioner to pay any tax amount or penalty amount in pursuance of the order dated 14th Oct., 2003. The petitioner appears to have paid the amount to the transporter voluntarily and if the petitioner was of the view that he was not liable to pay the said tax and penalty amount in pursuance to the order dated 14th Oct., 2003 to anybody then he should have resisted any demand, but here in this case, the petitioner did not challenge the order by filing appeal. It is not the case of the petitioner that he sought permission to challenge the order of the taxing authority as an aggrieved person and taxing authority or appellate authority refused the permission.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that since the order has not been passed against the petitioner, therefore, he could not have filed the appeal against the impugned order. The argument is destroying the petitioner’s case as by this, the petitioner admits that by order dated 14th Oct., 2003, the State authorities have not determined the liability of the petitioner and, therefore, he could not have preferred appeal, which clearly shows that the order passed by the assessing authority is not against the petitioner.
6. So far as demand if it was made by the transporter from the petitioner and it was satisfied by the petitioner is concerned, that cannot now be made a subject mater of dispute if petitioner voluntarily paid the amount to his transporter and if he paid it under protest then he should have recovered it from his transporter, who recovered the amount from the petitioner illegally, according to petitioner. The writ petition to recover such amount from a private individual is not maintainable.
7. Apart from above, there appears to be no reason to entertain the present writ petition, which has been filed after about 9 months from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 14th Oct., 2003 by bye passing the remedy of appeal which the petitioner could have availed under the statutory provisions of law.
8. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed.