The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI P.ANWESH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: ASST. cp FOR TRANSPOFT The Court made the following: ORDER B THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH IVRIT PETITION No.32914 OF 20.25 ORDER: Heard learned Counsel lor the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Transport appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. With the consent of both sides, this writ petitior-r is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in not considering the application liled by the pet.itioner dated 08.10.2025 and rejecting the refund amount of Rs.39,670l- (additional 2o/o life tax) lvide No.448lTG2OBIKKP/2025, dated 08.10.2025 for the Letter vehicle purchased by the petitioner as iilegal and arbitrary and requested _ to direct the respondentS to refund the amount of Rs.39,670/- (additional 2%o life tax) to the a petitioner. .gA t* r -a,_ SK,./ W.P.,to .32911 of 202 5 3 Learnr:d Counsel for the petitioner fu -ther submits that the rejection order passed by the r(spondents 1S contrary to thc order dated 29.11.2024 pz.ssed by this Court in W.P.No.33567 ol 2024 and reque sted to pass similar order in this matter

4. On the other hand, the learne ci Assistant Government Pleadcr for Tralsport is not rlisptrLing the submission made by the learned Counsel for tire ltetitior-rer with regard to the clisposal ol W.P.No.33567 ol 2024, dated

29.t r.2024

5. In vieu' of the above made submissions by both sides and for the reasons alike in the order in W.F'..\o..33567 of 2024, dated129.11.2024, this writ petition is disfoosed of by directing tht: respondents to refund the amount of Rs.39,670/- (additional 2o/n life tax) to the petitionerr for the vehicle bearing Temporary Registration No.TQ()9AC TRO465 -l -l 5K,J W.P.No.32914 of 2025 within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shal1 be no order as to costs

6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand clo sed.

7. Registry is directed to alnex copy of the order in W.P.No.33567 ol 2024, dated 29.11.2024 along wirh this order. To, //TRUE COPY// /.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO SSISTANT SECTION OFFICER 1- The Principal Secretary, Transpo( Departme Telangana. $ Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner of Transport, Telanganal, Dr. BR Ambedkar Transport Bhavan, Khairatabad Rd, beside pressclub, Hyderabad, Telangana,500084

3. The Regional Transporl l|uthority, Kukatpally Housing Qpard Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana 500085.

4. One CC to SRI P.ANWESH REDDY, Advocate. IOPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court for the State of Telangana.

6. Two CD Copies. (Along with a copy of Order in W.P.No.33567 of ZOZ4, OateO 29-11-2024to this Order) BSK BS I t HIGH COURT DATED:1311112025 ORDER WP.No.32914 of 2025 EH 14: Ro t fn( 2 5 ttou 7q5 i /",;'L' / :,- l, o * r'+EQ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS , I I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 33567 OF 2024 ORDER: (i) (ii) (iii) Petitioner seeks the following relief declare the action of the Respondents in directing the Pctitioner to pay additional amount of Rs. 47,9gO/- based on the price list maintained by the 3.d respondent by treating Rs. 25,93,9991- as the cost of vehicle, though the actual ex_ showroom price is Rs. 23,99,OOO /- as on 11-11-2024 i.e., the date of purchase of ttre vehicle, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Sections 2 and 3 of the Telangana Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 declare that the provisions of the Seventh Schedule of the Telangana Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963 are not applicable to petitioner and consequently declare that the action of petitioner to pay Rs_ 39,OtO/- being additional 2yo tax payable as per the Seventh Schedule by treating that Mahindra XUV 7OO AX7 L Diesel AT 7-Seater variant, Midnight Btack Colour bearing Temporary Registration Mark TG 10ETR 9644 purchased by him is a second vehicle as on the date of registration as illegal and violative of the provisions of Telangana Motor Velaicles Taxation Act, 1963. declare the inaction of Respondent No.3 in refusing to register Mahindra XUV 70O AX7 L Diesel AT 7-Seater variant, Midnight Black Colour bearing Temporary Regilt.ration Mark Tc lOETR 9644 in favour of the Petitioner as illJgal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of _ Telangana Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963 and the rules framed thereunder and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iv) Consequently, direct the Respondents to register Mahindra . XUV 7OO AX7 L Diesel AT 7-Seater variant, Midnight Black Colour bearing Temporary Registration Mark f$ IO ETR 9644 in favour of the Petitioner with registration Gumber TG 11 A 5858, without insisting any additional tax amount in addition to Rs. 4,31,820/- already paid by the petitioner on 11. 11 2024 through transaction number 49NETRO29O7O153 as per the Sixth Schedule of the Telangana Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 and pass such further or other order(s) as this 2 Hontrle Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Petitioner, on 1 1- 1 I 2024 , purchased Mahindr XUV 700, AX7L, 856 Diesel variant, in Midnight Black colour, 2 from Neon Motors Private Limited, Ex-showroom price of which was Rs. 23,99 ,OOO / - with no discounts provided by the vendor. I Sale was confirmed through a Sale Certificate issued by the dealer. Additionally, petitioner paid Rs. 4 ,31 ,82O / - as vehicle tax, which is 18% of the ex showroom price, as per Schedule VI of the Telangana Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963. Furthermore, petitioner was provided with Vehicle Fitness Certificate under Form 22 by the dealer and insurance policy dated 1 I -1 'l -2024. In compliance with Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), petitioner obtained temporary registration of vehicle through the dealer with Temporary I Registration Mark TG 10 ETR 9644, according to the provisions of the Telangana Motor Vehicle Rulcs, 1989, specifically Rule 84, which grants the dealer the authorityr,'to issue such registraLion for new vehicles sold. It is stated, petitioner reserve d Registration Number TG 11 A 5858 for the vehicle, with an allotment proceeding '-.}\ dated 19- 1 l-2O24 and hc is required to complete the vehicle registration within r 5 days from the date of reservation. on 25-17-2024, when petitioner approached the 3d respondent authority to complete the registration process, he was informed that an additional tax of Rs. g6,990 /_ is required to be paid. The reasons provided thercfor were two_fold: firstly, records of the 3.d respondent indicated an ex_showroom price of Rs.25,93,999/-, and rhercforc, a drfferential tax amount of Rs.47,98O/- was demanded; secondly, petitioner was informed that vehicle, though purchased as a new vehicle, was considered as ,second vehiclc'as of registration date, and as per the provisions of the Terangana Motor Vehicres Taxation Act, 1963, an additional 2yo ta;r. of Rs. 39,010/_ was applicable for second vehicle. Petitioner, it is stated, immediately co(tacted the vendor, who issued letter dated 26-11 2024 confirming that ex showroom price was Rs. 23,99,000/- with no additional discounts offered. Regardir-rg thc sccond vehicle tax, petitioner explained that previous vehicle bezrring .egist.ation No. Ap 11 AP 5694 was sold on l3-1 l_2O24, and a screenshot evidencing the transfer of ownership is also filed. According to petttioner, -1 additional 2ok tax should not apply, as he did not rrvn any other vehicle at the time of registration. Howcver, thi .),,t rr:spondent insisted on additional tax payments, refusing ro cornplete the registratiorl process unless the demanded anrl)unt rvas paid. According to petitioner, ta-x should be based ()n llle actual cx shorvroom price of Rs.23,99,000/- and that n r iLdditional tax should apply as he did not own anv other vehrr:1, ;rt the time of registration.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri A. Gi:irlhar Rao, on behalf of learned counsel for petitioner Sri I)alkr Slinivas Reddy sLlbmits that Schedule-VI, which applics to r . lrickrs costing Rs.20 lacs or more, manclates an 187() tan rirl( rrt the timc of registration and additional 2ok tax under Scher r- Ie-\/ll is only applicable if the individual owns more than onr ', ehir:le at the timc of registration, not at the timc of tcmportrrr' rcfistration. Tl'ris contention is supportecl b1' the judgmenr' ir Wrir Petition No. 13626 of 2020 (Rohit Nayani u. The State oJ"Ielangana), which clarificd that date of physical registr.rti()n i.; relcr.ant for imposition of taxcs, not the date o[ t.-po.,,,.. rei]istration. Learned counsel invokes the principle that tt:iing statutes should be strictly constmed in favor of the taxpa..r.r', as per the i I 'I I ./: 5 nrling in CA Abrahqm u, Income Tax OfJicer, Kottagamt. He therefore, requests interim relief to prevent forfeiture of reserved registration number, as per Rule gl(6) of the Telangana Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which mandates forfeiture of reserved number after 15 days from the reservation.

4. Learned Government pleader for Transport, Sri M. Vigneshwar Reddy, on receipt of written instmctions from the Regional Transport Officer, RTA, Hyderabad East Zone, submits that on verification, the Regional Transport Ofhcer foirnd that ex-show room price of subject vehicle is Rs.25,93,999/-, whereas the ciealer collected life time tax for Rs.23,99,000 l- only. It is submitted that life tax at 20%o has to be collected as the case of petitioner falls in Schedule VII for having already possessed vehicle bearing Registration No. Ap 11 AP 5694 as on 1 7.11.2024 i.e. at the timef of temporary registration of the subject vehicle. According to learned Government Pleader, actual applicabitity of life time tax at 2Ook on ex-show room price of vehicle of Rs.25,93,eQ9/_ would come to Rs.5,18,800/-, instead, the dealer collected Rs.4,31,g20/_ at 187o on Rs.23,99,0O0/-; the difference amount was worked out ' atn l9o t 609 d, 6 to Rs.86,980/-. Learned Government Plt'rrler therefore, requests this Court to direct petitioncr to pa]' t1,r di[lcrence ol amount.

5. Perused the material on record. .\s, regards the ground taken by learned Covernment Pleader t :t. rt 2o'l. of the tax has to bc levied on petitioner ( inclusive of 2" , lirr l)ossessrng the second vehicle) is concerned, in Writ Petitiorl No. 13626 of 2O2O, a Coordinate Bench of this Court dcalt ra rI th,l issue 'as to what rvrll be applicable date of registration lbr the ;;urpose of lerying the appropriate tax, whether the date ol >Lrrch:rse of the 2rxl vehiclc shor-rlci be taken as the date of rt'r k.rnitrg [or the purpose of applf ing the Seventh Schedule or tvltt ther the date of actual registration of the vehicle should be takc.l as a criteria for levying the applicable Schedule i.e. Third St r,:dttk:. In the Schedule which are enumerated in thc Act ''it is clcarly mentioned that 'at the time of registration o[ nr'.r' r,elricles'. Irr the saicl orrler, it has been observed that there is 'l 'ctr distrnctton bettueen the temporarA licence and permanent rt'gi:,tration. Whcn the Act/ Scheclule states 'at the time of ,ugit'r,rtron oJ ncu.t uehicle', the same has to be interpreted to ntectrL ot the timt: the uehicle is phy sicallg presented before the T.T.A Off.ce for the 7 purpose of registration. Temporary licence is generated on line by the dealer and it is onlg a licence to diue the uehicle for a peiod of 30 days from the dote of deliuery bg the dealer, bg no stretch of imagination can it be contended that the date on which uthat temporory licence is generated bg the dealer should be taken as the date of registrotion'In view of the same, and also in view of the fact that petitioner is stated to have sold the vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 11 AP 5694 and thc same was got registered in the name of purchaser on 13.11.2024, this Court does not hnd any ground io take a different view in this regard. Furthdr, to vouch safe the said fact, petitioner also annexed the copy of screenshot evidencing transfer of vehicle to a third party as material papers. Hence, it can safely be said that tax should be levied at 78"k only.

6. So far as the contention that ex showfoom price of Rs.25,93,999 /- is concerned, though learned Government Pleader submits that the Regronal Transport Officer verified from the records of their office as per thc instruc.tions issued by the Transport Commissioner uide Circular Memo No. 3594 IIT / 2022, dated 29 .O8.2022, which would be Rs.25,93,999/-, petitioner filed GST invoice and the letter t m 8 --l addressed by the dealer M/s Neon Motors Privat,: Limited to the RTA-Hyderab ad-EZ, Lo the effect that ex-showroorn price of the subject vehrcle is Rs.23,99,O0O/- on 11.11.2O2, and that they did not give any additional discount to the customer, as material papers, to show that ex-show roort price before drscount (Tr & life tax paid on this amount) ls Rs.23,99,000/ only. According to the Sixth Schedule, where .bur wheelers rvhose cost is Rs.2O lacs or above, at the time o' -egistration of new vehrcles, tax ieviable is at 187o. In view o1 the same and since it is nlled out that petitioner sold the ea:1ier vehicle on

13.17.2024 itself, Schedule VI applies to his case, but not Schedule VII as contended by the learned Governnent Pleader. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the amo u nt of ta-x para at Rs.4,3 1,82O/ at l8%o on the ex-showroor price, in the cor-rsidercd opinion of this Court, is just. ''

7. The respondents are therefore, dire,,t,-d to register Mahindra XUV 70O AXTL Diesel AT 7-Seater va:i,rnt, Midnight Black Colour bearing Temporary Registration ga:k TG IOETR 9644 in favour of petitioner with registration No. l'G 1. 1 A 5858 (since he has already reserved the number on t!)_ 1 1.2024, as per Rule 81(6) of the Telangana Motor Vehicle ?uies, 19g9), 9 forthwith without insisting on additional tax amount in addition to what has already been paid by him on I 1 . 1 1 .2024. 8- COStS.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. No Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

29.h November 2024 NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J I t a |s