The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard learned counsei for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondents and perused the materia-l on record. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition is liled by the petitioncr questioning the action of the Respondent No.4 in seizing the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.KA 20 MD 1305, pursuant to the Vehicle Check Report No.02 104 16, dated 09.IO.2025 illegal .and arbitrary and requested to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to release the said vehicle without insisting upon payment of Telangala Lile Tax. 3

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar circumstances, this Court disposed of the t t ) st(, J W.P.No.336O3 of 2025 W.P.No.lO877 of 2025 on 30.10.2025 and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition also 4 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport is not disputing the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the disposal of W.P.No.lO877 of 2025 dated

30.10.2025. 5 The operative portion of the above said W.P.No. 10877 of 2025, dated 30. lO.2025 is as follows: "ln view of the principle laid down rr Rannnath Antmugam's case (supra), the respondents cannot demand the petitioner to pay Life Time Tax on the ground that the subject vehicle was kept in the State of Telangana for more than three months. Moreover, as per Section 47 of the M.V Act, if the vehicle is kept beyond 12 months, tJ:re vehicle has to be re-registered in tJ'e particular place. In the instant case, the respondents nowhere mentioned that the vehicle was kept in Telangana State beyond twelve months except surveillance camera I t \, S,(, J W.P.No.336O3 oJ 2O25 footage. In view of the same, the impugned Memo is liable to be set aside and the respondents have to release the subject vehicle to the petitioner." 6 In view of the above made submissions by both I sides and for the reasons alike in the order in W.P.No.10877 of 2025 dated 30.10.2025, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the Vehicle Check Report No.02 10416, dated 09.1O.2025 and the respondents are directed to release the subject vehicle to the petitioner bearing Registration No.KA 20 MD 1305. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. 8 Registry is directed to annex copy of the order in W.P.No.lO877 of 2025 dated 30.10.2025 along with this order. To, SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \

1. The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana, Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary (RTA), Hyderabad. 3. The Regional Transport Officer, Central Zone, Hyderabad. 4. The Motor Vehicle lnspector, Driving Test Track, Nagole, RTA Hyderabad CP r. o) I sr, J W.P.No.33603 of 2O25 footage. In view of the same, the impugned Memo is liable to be set aside and the respondents have to release the subject vehicle to the petitioner." 6 In view ol the above mad.e submissions by both sides and for the reasons alike in the order in W.P.No.10877 of 2025 dated 30.1O.2025, this writ petition is disposed of b_v setting aside the Vehicle Check Report No.02 104 16, dated 09.1O.2025 and the respondents are directed to rclease the subject vehicle to the petitioner bearing Registration No.I(A 20 MD 1305. There sha-ll be no order as to costs 7 Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

8. Registry is directed to annex copy of the order in W.P.No.lOB77 of 2025 dated 30.1O.2O25 along with this To, D/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI \ //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 'l . The Principal Secretary. State of Telangana, Tran Secretariat. Hyderabad. ort Department,

2. The Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary (RTA), Hyderabad, 3. The Regional Transport Officer, Central Zone, Hyderabad. 4. The Motor Vehicle lnspector, Driving Test Track, Nagole, RTA Hyderabad. Cr r.o) I

5. One CC to SRI KAMPALLI UDAY KANTH Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR IRANSPORT Dept ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] I

7. Two CD Copies D.N GJP MMT HIGH COURT DATED:0611112025 t t ORDER WP.No.33603 of 2025 SEH1 \ c .) 1 j tIB 2026 Z Dr^ DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I I I I Il I I I I I I I I t I d6l vrr..rr 1fl rzlzr 1 SK, J W.P.No.10877 of 2025 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.lO877 of 20.25 ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning action of the respondent No.4 in seizing the petitioner's vehicle vide LMV Car bearing Registration No.KA-O1- NB-1141 (Battery operated) and the consequential impugned R.No.873/C17 /2025 dated 19.03.2025 on the ground that the said Memo vehicle was plying in Hyderabad for more than three months as the same was registered in the State of Karnataka and the said action of the respondents is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.601, Home (Tr.II) Department, dated 27.03.1963 and also contrar5r to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.L9L4L of 2015 dated 09.12.2024.

2. Heard Sri C.L.N.Gandhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vigneshwar Reddy, learned 2 SK, J W.P.No.10877 of 2O25 Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondents.

3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of Telangana Gas Company having establishments in the State of Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, authorized LPG Distributor for HPCL. The petitioner had purchased LMV Car BMW (Battery Operated) in Karnataka vide bearing Registration No.KA-01-NB- 1141 (hereinafter referred to as 'subject vehicle') and the said vehicle is totally exempted from payment of motor vehicle tax in the State of Karnataka for Battery operated vehicle and has been using the said vehicle in all three States to all the units wherever they are located in Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the vehicle was seized on 3 SK, J W.P.No.10877 of 2025

15.02.2025 while it was being used for the official purpose in Hyderabad on the ground of no proof of payment of Telangana State Motor Vehicle Tax vide VCR No.0198335 by the respondent No.4. The Telangana State Government has exempted the payment of tax in respect of non-transport motor vehicles that were registered and normally kept in any other State in India to facilitate the hassle free travel in the Country. The G.O.Ms.No.601, Home (Tr.II) Department dated 27.03.1963 was issued exempting motor vehicle tax in respect of other State Non-Transport vehicles which were registered and normally kept in any other State in India for which tax has been paid to the Home State and the said G.O is still subsisting and valid.

5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner vide 4 SK, J w.P.No. 10877 of 2025 R.No.873/C17 12025 dated 03.O3.2025 for payment of life tax of Rs. ll,l4,44ol- together with penalty of Rs.91,320/-. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.03.2025. In spite of the said explanation, without taking into account of the same, the respondent No.3 issued impugned Memo R.No.873/C1712025 dated 19.03,2025 and directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,32,760/-. The said action is arbitrar5r and illegal and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside impugned Memo.

6. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner 1n support of his contention, placed reliance on the following orders rendered by the Division Bench of this Court:

7. Rannnath Arumugam Vs. Transport O;fficer, Hgdera.badl. The Regional I Unleported orders of this Court in WP No.19141 of 2015 Dated 09.12.2024 5 SK, J W.P.No.10877 of 2025

7. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Transport, basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.3, would submit that the petitioner despite being permanent resident of Telangana has purchased and registered the subject vehicle in Karnataka State for the sake of exemption and to evade Life Time Tax in Telangana and the subject vehicle is being used permanently within Telangana since 01.01.2024 as the same is evident from police surveillance records captured 1n Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras around L82 times and 10 Traffic Challans were recorded in Telangana and in view of the same the subject vehicle is liable for Life Time Tax under Telangana Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The petitioner's claim of temporary use of vehicle is incorrect and the exemption provisions under 6 SK, J W.P.No.10877 of 2025 G.O.Ms.No.6O1 Home (Tr-II) Department dated 27.03.1963 and other provisions relied on by the petitioner are not applicable, as the said G.O is with regard to quarterly, half yearly and yearly tax which is paid to Home State (Karnataka), whereas the present issue is with regard to Life Time Tax as the subject vehicle is being used in public in the State of Telangana. The respondents are not aware with regard to petitioner's business, establishments 1n Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh travelling extensively to all units. 8 The learned Government Pleader further submits that petitioner purchased the subject vehicle for meeting their transport requirements and it clearly demonstrates that the petitioner purposefully purchased and registered the vehicle in Karnataka State where Life-Tax for Battery operated vehicles was exempted at the time of its registration, 7 SK, J W.P.No.10877 of 2025 during such period life tax was being imposed on Battery operated vehicles in Telangana. After registration of the vehicle in Karnataka, the vehicle is very much plying in the State of Telangana, more particular\ 1n Hyderabad as the petitioner 1S permanent resident of Hyderabad. The petitioner registered the subject vehicle on 29.12.2023 and immediately entered into Telangana on Ol.Ol.2024. Further, Section 47 of the M.V Act provides the Registered owner to re-assign a new registration mark, where a vehicle has been kept in another State beyond twelve months, that too on production of no-objection certificate issued under Section 48 of the Act. The respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on O3.03.2025 for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.03.2025 and as the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, the impugned order was passed on

79.03.2025 demanding the petitioner to pay an 8 SK, J W.P.No. 10877 of 2025 amount of Rs.12,32,7601- for violations and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

9. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the petitioner 1n respect of the subject vehicle bearing registration No.KA-O1-NB-1141 (Battery Operated) and the said vehicle was seized by the respondent authorities on t5.O2.2025 on the ground that the said vehicle is being used in the State of Telangana for more than three months and thereby the petitioner is liable to pay a life time tax in Telangana State. Immediately, the petitioner made application on 27.O2.2O25 to the respondent authorities to release the vehicle. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice in R.No.873/C 17 /20256 dated 03.03 .2025 for payment 9 SK, J W.P.No.10877 of 2025 of life tax of Rs.1 1,41,44O /- together with penalty of Rs.91,32O/-. In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on

06.03.2025 enumerating the Rule provisions and orders of the respondent in G.O.Ms.No.601, Home (Tr.II) Department dated 27.O3.1963. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued impugned Memo No.R.No.873lCl7/2025 dated L9.O3.2025 demanding the petitioner to pay Life Tax to an amount of Rs.12,32 ,760 I -.

10. The contention of the respondent authorities in their counter is that, the subject vehicle of the petitioner was captured 182 times from Ol.Ol.2O24 to O9.O7.2O25 by the Automatic Number Plate Reorganization Cameras installed by the Cyberabad and Rachakonda Police Commissionerates. In fact the subject vehicle was seized on 15.02.2025 on the ground that the vehicle was being used in Telangana 10 SK, J W.P.No. 10877 of 2025 State for more than three months. The respondent authorities without taking into account of the explanation submitted the petitioner, now in their counter it is mentioned that the subject vehicle was captured 182 times by the Surveillance Cameras from 01.O7.2O2+ to 09.O7.2025, whereas the vehicle was seized on 15.02.2025 and mentioning the date of capture even after filing of the writ petition. The said contention cannot be taken into account as the vehicle was purchased on 29.12.2023 and seized on 15.02.2O25 on the ground that more than three months the vehicle was plying in Telangana State.

11. Moreover, Section 47 of the M.V Act applies when the vehicle is kept in a particular State for more than twelve months. Section 47 of the M.V Act reads as under: Assignment of neut registration mark on remoual to another State.-(1) When a motor uehicle regi.stered in one State has been kept in another State, for a peiod. 1l SK, J W.P.No.10877 of 2025 exceeding tu.telue montLs, tlle oluner of the uehicle shall, tlithin such peiod and in such form containing such particulars as mag be prescibed by the Central Gouernment, apply to the registering autlaitg, within wlose jurisdiction the uehicle tlrcn is, for the assignm.ent of a new registratbn mark and slnll present tLE certificate of registration to tlwt registeing autLnitg: registered in one State lus been kept in another State, for a peiod exceeding tuelue montls, the ou.tner of tle uehicle stnll, within such peiod and in such form containing such particulars @s maq be prescibed bg tte Central Gouemment, applg to the registering authoritA, within uhose juisdiction the uehicle then is, for the assignment of a neu registration mark and shall present the certificate of registration to that registeing authoitg:

12. In the instant case, in the show-cause notice R.No.873lC17 /2025, dated 03.03.2025, it is mentioned that the subject vehicle is in usage for more than three (3) months. The respondents 1n their counter mentioned that immediately after purchase of the vehicle it was entered into State of Telangana. There is no bar to a vehicle purchased in another State from entering Telangana State immediately. Therefore, the contention of the respondents cannot be acceptable. l2 SK, J w.P.No.10877 of 2025

13. Moreover, in the orders relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Ro.mnath Antmugam's case (supra) held that merely on the ground of the vehicle has entered into the State of Telangana, for temporary purpose and limited period, the respondent authorities are not entitled to demand for payment of life tax. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted is as under: "9. In the case on hand, the subject uehicle was registered in the State of Tamilnadu and life time tax was paid to the State of Tamilnadu. The said uehicle has entered into the State of Telangana for temporary purpose and the said uehicle was not re-registered in the State of Telangana. If the said uehicle is reregistered in the State of Telangana as per tlrc provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is liable for pagment of life tax. Merelg on the ground that the uehicle has entered into the State of Telangana, for temporary purpose and limited period, the respondent 13 SK, J W-P.No- 10877 of 2025 authoities are not entitled to demand for paAment of life time tax"

14. The above said order squarely apply to the facts of the instant case as the subject vehicle was also entered in the State of Telangana for several times on temporarSr purpose and cannot liable to pay life tax in Telangana State.

15. In view of the principle iaid down in Rq.mnath Antmugam's case (supra), the respondents cannot demand the petitioner to pay Life Time Tax on the ground that the subject vehicle was kept in the State of Telangana for more than three months. Moreover, as per Section 47 of the M.V Act, if the vehicle is kept beyond 12 months, the vehicle has to be re- registered in the particular place. In the instant case, the respondents nowhere mentioned that the vehicle was kept in Telangana State beyond twelve months except surveillance carnera footage. In view of the same, the impugned Memo is liable to be set 14 SK, J W.P.No.10877 of 2025 aside and the respondents have to release the subject vehicle to the petitioner.

76. In view of the above finding, the Writ Petition is a,llowed by setting aside the impugned Memo R.No.873/C17 12025 dated 19.03.2025. No costs.

17. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs. Date:30.lO.2025 JUSTICE K. SARATH