The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI L.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT .. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGF,SH BHEEMAPAXA V/RIT PETITION No. 136 10F 2023 o RDER: Petitioner is stated to have purchased a Black BMW 73OLD,2013 model, bearing registration No DL lCQ 4638' for Rs. 9,75,OO0/- from Quest Experiential Services Ltd' through Kunj Motors in Delhi as reflected in the invoice dated 22-08-2022. Original cost of the vehicle, as per the invoice dated 26 11 2013, rvas Rs. g2,5O,OOOl-' According to him' one-time tax (O'I'T) amounting to Rs. 12,48,687 I irrad' already been paid have apProached the forthevehicleatthetimeofitspurchaseinDelhi,validforthc lifetime of the vehicle as per the applicable rules' Upon bringing the vehicie to Hyderabad in September 2022' he is stated to 2.d respondent with all mandatory transfer of ownership. Despite his documents to effect willingness to pay the requisite charges' the 2"d respondent demanded Rs. 14,91,15O/-' This amount was calculated as 15.57o road tax on the original invoice price of Rs 92'50'O0O/-' along with 4oh transfer charges' It is contended, respondent's demand for road tax on the original invoice price is arbitrary' illegal' and without 2 authority, as the vehicle is already IO-year-old and has signihcantly depreciated in value. Imposition of life tax on the old vehicle contradicts the provisions of Section 4T(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which does not empower the respondents to ler,ry life tax on a previously taxed vehicle. F urthermore, Rule 96 of the Andhra pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, also does not authorize such tax imposition.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri L.V. Ramana Rao submits that this Court, in Writ petition No. 6978 of 2Ol5 uide order dated i8-03 2Oi5, declarcd such demands as illcgal. Therefore, a dircction is sought to the 2nd respondent to transfer the ownership of vehicle to petitioner without demanding life tax or any additional t:lx.

3. Thc case of the 2n,l respondent, as submitted by learned Governrnent Plezrdcr for Transport, is t hat sale consideration for the nine-year-old vehicle, originally registered on 26-ll-2013, cannoL override the invoice price, which forms the basis for life tax calculation. This follows column No. 6 of the Sixth Schedule of G.O.Ms. No. 22, dated 07_O5 2022, which mandates tax levied on the cost of the vehicle as per the invoice, adjusted for the vehicle's age. It is submitted that motor vehicle a- I J _) taxes are State taxes governed independently under the respective State Legislations. Taxes paid in Delhi, even if termed as one-time tax (OTT), do not exempt liability for taxes under Telangana's jurisdiction. Under Section 3 of. the TSMVT Act, 1963, tax is levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State. Hence, petitioner may seek refund from Delhi authorities for the unutiltzed OTI period, but the liability to pay life tax in Teiangana remains. The respondent clarihes that the stiputated tax must be paid upon issuance of NOC and entry of the vehicle into Telangana. Learned Government Pleader clarified that all non transport category vehicles, including motor cars and jceps, entering Telangana by address change or ownership transfer, are subject to life tax as per Schedule Vi of G.O.Ms.No. 22- "fL.e invoice price of Rs.92.50 iacs and vehicle's age exceeding eight years was considered, along with a penalty of lok pet month on the tax as per Rule 13 of the 1963 Rules. Petitioner's contention thaL 4%o transfer charges were imposed is fefuted. It is submitted that this was a penalt5r of 17o per month on the payable life tax from the date of 'NOC' issuance. The penalty is mandated under Rule 13, item No. 4 of the TSMVT Rules, 1964. I 4 Learned Government Pleader submits that the order in Writ Petition No. 6978 ot 2015 is not applicable as thc said order pertains to absence of explicit legal provisions in the impugned ordcr of that case, which is not analogous to the present situation. Similarly, re ferences to judgments in W.P. No. 17038 of 2014 and W.A. No. 805 of 2O18 are addressed, with the respondent explaining the distinction between disputes over vehicle seizure lbr alleged continuous operation in Telangana and the currcnl case involving ownership transfcr and tax liability. According to learned Governmcnt Pleader, Transport Commissioner's Circular Memo dated 03-12-2019, mandates tax collection bascd on invoice price. This is supported by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 805 <'tf 2Ol8 uide judgment datcd 02 O5-2O 18. Further reliancc is ltlaced on the judgment in Stcte of Karnataka u. K.G. Shenog, '",t'here the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld a similar le'"y of tzx under analogous state laws. He submits that petitioner's a.rgument that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 47, prohibits re-imposition of life tax is not correct, for, the Motor Vehicles Act governs vehicle registration, while thc TSMVT Act o 5 governs tax levies, operating independently. As per the Sixth Schedule to G.O.Ms. No. 22, life tax is collectible from all the vehicles used or kept for use in Telangana and petitioner's vehicle, having entered the State and sought ownership transfer, is subject to these tax provisions. In view of the same, there is no irregularity in imposition of life tax and penalt5r as per Section 3 of the TSMVT Act, 1963, the Sixth Schedule of G.O.Ms. No. 22, and Rule 13 of the TSMVT Rules, 1963. The pctitioner's vehicle cannot be permitted to operale in Telangana until the due taxes and penalties are paid.

4. The primary issue in this case revolves around the question as to whether the demand for life tax imposed by the 2,d respondent under the Telangana State Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963 is valid and lawful when tax was paid on the subject vehicle in another state (Delhi). While petitioner contends that such levy of additional tax is unjustihed, respondents argue that the same is in accordance with State laws and applicable G.O.Ms. No. 22 dated 07 O5-2O22.

5. Section 3 of the 1963 Act, unequivocally, empowers the State Government to lely taxes on motor vehicles used or kept for use within the State. Petitioner's liability arises from the d... I I 1 6 act of transferring the vehicle to Telangana and secking its registration in the State. G.O.Ms. No. 22, dated 07 O5-2O22, explicitly mandates tax calculations based on the vehicle's invoice price, with reductions for". age. The Sixth Schedule stipulates that three or four wheeler motor vehicles including motor cars, jeeps coming under non-transport category, omnibuses up to a seating capacity of ten persons in a1l and new motor cabs and the motor cabs ol other stzrtes, that are entering into the rolls of the State by way of change of address or transfer of owncrship, thc tax is levicd :rt thc rates prescribed therein on the cost of thc vehiclc. h-r accordance therewith, since petitioner's vehicle was purchased more than nine years back but not more than ten years by thc time it was brought to Hyderabad in September 2022, ar,d its cost exceeds Rs.2O iacs, tax should be levied at 18o/o on thc cost of the vehicle. The cases cited by petitioner, such as Writ Petition No. 697a of 2015 involved scenarios where r.chicles were temporarily present in a state. In contrast, the present case involves a permanent transfer of vehicle's registration, triggering application of Telangana's taxation rules. , I 7

6. In K.G. Shenog's case (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 3(1) of the Karnataka State Act that it confers right upon the State to levy tax on all moLor vehicles which are suitably designed for use on roads at prescribed rates without reference to the road worthy condition of the vehicle or otherwise. It was further clearly pointed out in the said judgment that the charging section of the Taxation Act has to be construed on its own terms and not with reference to the provisions contained in the Motor vehicles Acf. Further, in Writ Petition No. 17038 ol 2014, by order dated lO.O7.2Ol4, this Court held that motor vehicles which are registered in some other State but entering into the State for purposes of entering of rolls of that State by way of change of address or transfer of ownership alone are required to suffer the tax specified in Sixth schedule. In view of the same, since petitioner seeks transfer of vehicle in his name, the vehicle should suffer tax as specihed in the Sixth Schedule' This Court therefore, cannot grant the relief sought by petitioner in this Writ Petil ion. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed' No 7 . costs. r,/ 1 8 :r 8 Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any sha11 stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ,ASSISTANT REGI TRAR SECTION FrrceR To, 1 . The Principal Secretary, Transport Department'. Secretariat Buildlngs' Hyderabad State of Telangana, Ielangana state

2. The Regional Transport Authority, Central Zone, Khairatabad' Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRI L.V.RAMANA RAO, Advocate' IOPUCI 4. Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court for the State of Telangana

5. Two CD CoPies. BSK GJ HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 / .? r r'iEL,j .s .\ \rs \ '.:i-..t ORDER WP.No.1361 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ts-