Go Back   Team-BHP > BHP India > The Indian Car Scene


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10th February 2015, 15:06   #1171
BHPian
 
prakash_ajp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 493
Thanked: 715 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Quote:
Originally Posted by atnyia View Post
I think it's a poor argument. Government is not for opportunism and petty extortions. It is to stop that.
And it's people's right to evade tax, huh? Going by your logic, that's poor argument too. If you read my post carefully enough, I was talking about the people who are deliberately evading tax. I still feel sorry for the innocent few who are affected, but the fact that so many people are deliberately doing it might have made the RTO officials thinking. We see it everywhere, even in corporates, where some good perks are taken off because some people find ways to abuse/misuse them.

So, my point is - rules are rules. It's definitely our right to fight to change it (which is what is happening now), but as long as it's a rule, we must abide. Generally, people in India have a problem with that and they come up with all kind of excuses for not following them, be it driving in wrong direction or talking on phone, heck even for not paying income tax.

It's not for me to decide what is right for everyone, but just my point of view.
prakash_ajp is online now  
Old 10th February 2015, 15:26   #1172
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,137
Thanked: 674 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Quote:
Originally Posted by theexperthand
Are you aware of the process followed by courts while serving notices? They do not barge in and arrest you at the first instance - they send a legal notice and ask to be present on a so and so date.
Point #1: RTO is not a judicial court. They are part of the executive, just like the police. So how the court operates is not the bible for how the RTO operates. Point #2: How did you arrive at the conclusion that the RTOs "arrested" people? The vehicles were seized (I have given the section which they may have used to justify that). Here also they asked the people who got caught with all documentary evidence to meet them, prove their case or pay the tax. And then take the vehicle back. More than the procedure followed by courts, this seems to be more like Traffic Police detaining a vehicle, and asking the driver to pay up the fine and take it back. RTOs as per the state act has the rights to check vehicles in public places, and detain them if they have tax dues. I did not find any arresting powers in the act.

Quote:
Having a parking sticker or a company sticker is not a proof. My cousin visits my apartment once in a month and he usually stays overnight so I have got him an apartment parking sticker so that he can park his car inside when he is visiting me. Now, it is not a proof that he is staying in my apartment, right?
This is the evidence which RTO collected. Whether it is the absolute proof or not, let the appellate authority or the higher courts decide. The vehicle owner can contest and try to get the RTOs case thrown out. Did any one try that out? Check with the people who got caught. Refer to Sec 12.A which explains who can try cases for Motor Vehicle Tax violation as per Karnataka's Act. It is - No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder.

Quote:
If RTO can use my company ID card and my parking sticker as a proof for demanding me to pay the tax, shouldn't they refund the tax if I can provide them a copy of appointment letter in another state and proof of my stay in another state (like rental agreement, gas connection bill etc) ?
I will keep it very simple. RTO collected all the documents, and they inform the accused that it would be used as evidence. Now if the accused feels that, these evidence would not stand for a court's scrutiny, he needs to appeal his case. An evidence is some thing which would help RTO prove their case in the court, if the accused plans to contest. So for the RTO these documents are to prove their point i.e that the accused has been staying in Karnataka for a longer period of time. It can never be considered as any other "official document" having validity to ask some thing later. To be very blunt. The RTO collected these as "evidence", which itself made the tax defaulters jittery. They got a feeling that their goose is cooked and instead of appealing decided to pay up. If they had doubts on how RTO would have taken the case in the courts, they could have appealed. But nobody appealed. Even the current case, rather than focusing on the modus operandi of the RTO, seems to be questioning Karnataka's rights to collect a Motor Vehicle Tax, within a time span of one month.

For majority of the IT company folks, finding an advocate, working out a case and then going the courts and fighting it out are all major problems. Figthing on Internet forums, or Facebook is easier. The RTO folks also know this. Silverwood & Co. are obviously an exception.
sachinpk is offline   (2) Thanks
Old 10th February 2015, 15:42   #1173
Senior - BHPian
 
Gansan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chennai
Posts: 3,426
Thanked: 875 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

It is not the checking part itself, but the abrasive style in which they do it that gets your goat. As if it is "their" land of milk and honey and you are an illegal Bangladeshi immigrant.

I faced this frequently in the early 2000's at Bangalore, driving a TN 22 Splendor. I immediately paid the LTT and pasted a copy of the receipt on the fairing, and rode around royally afterwards. Did not re-register the bike, as I knew I will be posted back to Chennai within a couple of years.

I plan to visit Bangalore for a week in the last week of March. Am travelling by train and not bringing my car, as I don't want any ruckus with these jokers.

Last edited by Gansan : 10th February 2015 at 15:46.
Gansan is offline  
Old 10th February 2015, 15:52   #1174
Senior - BHPian
 
theexperthand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,369
Thanked: 1,136 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Quote:
Originally Posted by sachinpk View Post
Point #1:Point #2: How did you arrive at the conclusion that the RTOs "arrested" people? The vehicles were seized (I have given the section which they may have used to justify that).
Where did I say that RTO did 'arrest' people? But they did seize with out serving a notice and waiting to see if the person who gets the notice serviced will act or not. Now, you did justify this by saying that it is tough for RTO to track repeat offenders - but why is that? It is because the government have not equipped them to do it. So, why don't they get their act first before strong arming the helpless? Because all they want is to increase the cash flow, not really to upheld the law. In the previous pages itself, there are two examples where they forced the victims to pay the tax, even after the court stay.

Quote:
1.This is the evidence which RTO collected.

2.I will keep it very simple. RTO collected all the documents, and they inform the accused that it would be used as evidence.

3.An evidence is some thing which would help RTO prove their case in the court, if the accused plans to contest. So for the RTO these documents are to prove their point i.e that the accused has been staying in Karnataka for a longer period of time.
You have stated 3 times that these (parking stickers, company stickers etc) are proof of evidence acceptable to RTO. Since the tax refund is also handled by RTO, don't you think these same evidence should be enough to claim refund also? Or, is it separate law for RTO and separate law for common man?

I am out of this thread until and unless some one have something constructive to contribute. Peace out.

--Anoop
theexperthand is offline   (1) Thanks
Old 10th February 2015, 15:56   #1175
Senior - BHPian
 
djay99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,456
Thanked: 491 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Whatever Karnataka RTO officials are doing is not good IMO. I hope they allow yearly road tax payment so that atleast a few folks will make payment and this is where real problem is.
I know few guy's in our office who have TN/KL/MH car's. They have been staying here since more than 2 to 3 years and did not pay KA road tax.

A couple of month's back one of this guy having TN car (he bought car in TN to save money even though he was in KA) had been to RTO office to get an international driving license as he was moving to US. He was stopped and asked for road tax receipt which he could not show as he never paid it. More over his insurance paper had bangalore address on it and RTO official took his original RC and asked him to pay tax. This guy called me and i could not help because he was caught red handed. He eventually paid around 45K and then transported car to TN and moved to US.
It is responsibility of people to pay taxes but people avoid it if they can. Even i feel tax rates in KA are insane and not worth even 10%. Go to North Karnataka and i would not even pay 2% as road tax as literally there are no roads. But even then, we KA people are forced to pay over 15% tax when there are no roads.

I wish they reduce road tax to sane levels and also bring yearly tax payment which will help migrant population to drive peacefully.

I paid over 1.1L as road tax for my 2 wheeler last year and i am moving to hyderabad shortly. As few members highlighted, availing refund from RTO is pain and time consuming. Eventually i might sell it and buy a new one over there. Govt policies, rules, implementation, little respect for other's on road etc sadly indicate that we deserve to be a third world country.

Last edited by djay99 : 10th February 2015 at 15:58.
djay99 is offline   (1) Thanks
Old 10th February 2015, 16:02   #1176
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,137
Thanked: 674 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Quote:
Originally Posted by binand
That is easy to answer. If you look at the Constitution of India, you will find that "Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied" is included in the concurrent list (schedule 7). Items in the concurrent list can be legislated and regulated by both the union and state governments, but if the union government has legislated on such an item, then it prevails over the state legislation irrespective of the relative chronological order of such legislations.
"Excellent! I cried. "Elementary," said he. (Sherlock Holmes - quotable quotes). Thanks for bringing up the elementary point about the Constitution . And that helped me to dig a bit more deep.

1. Google - which has been able to pull out pretty much every Indian law/act, was unable to find any specific law which is like a Central Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. For the moment, I am forced to think that such a legislation is NOT in place.
2. The next moot point would be see if Karnataka has made any modifications to its taxation act, which is against/contradicts a similar provision in the Central acts.
3. The third point is was whether the "Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied" included in the Concurrent list (schedule 7), is the only provision which is there on the subject of motor vehicle taxation.

I found a very old case (1965 vintage) - Phoolchand And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 20 October, 1965 , which was heard by the Hon. High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

The synopsis of the case is that two folks who own a public transport fleet, had vehicles which were used in Madhya Pradesh, but registered else where. They tried to avoid paying MP Road Tax, and tried to argue that the vehicles were not actually used, but only "kept for use", and hence tax need not be paid. The next contention was that the MP Road Tax was invalid, because it was in the Concurrent List and hence Presidential approval is required. MP Road Tax Act did not have this approval.

I am just quoting the excerpts from the judgement. Others can read it in detail and make your own understanding.
*** On the "kept for use" part. ***
5. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first argued that under Section 3(1) a tax at the specified rate is leviable on a motor vehicle if it is used or kept for use; and that the owner of a vehicle, if he does not use the vehicle for a certain period, cannot be said to have used the vehicle or kept the vehicle for use and, therefore, he is not liable to pay any tax under Section 3(1). We are unable to accept this contention which altogether ignores the true significance of the words "kept for use". It is not necessary that a vehicle kept for use must actually be used. A vehicle kept for use, even if it has not been actually used in a certain period, would none-the-less fall within the category of the vehicles kept for use. The words "kept for use" signify that the vehicles must be kept, that is to say, retained in one's possession, power and control with the intention and purpose of using as occasion may require, to enable the owner with the aid of the vehicle to carry on his business or move about. To illustrate, a person may own two or more motor cars, stage carriages or trucks for enabling him to move about or to carry on his business.

*** On the validity of the Amendment Act. ***
On the question of the vires of the Amending Act learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter of taxation of motor vehicles fell under Entry No. 35 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule and consequently the Amending Act required the assent of the President and as this was not done, the Act was invalid. The contention is altogether unsubstantial. The subject-matter of taxation on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, falls under Entry No. 57 of the State List. That entry is as follows:

"57. Taxes on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads, including tramcars subject to the provisions of entry 35 of List III."

Entry No. 35 of the Concurrent List is in the following terms:

"Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied."

On reading the two entries together it is clear that while the matter of the principles on which taxes on mechanically propelled vehicles are to be levied falls under Entry No. 35 of the Concurrent List, the question of taxes on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not is within the scope of Entry No. 57 of the State List.


*** On the existence of a Central level legislation regarding the Motor Vehicle Taxation ***
The subjection of Entry No. 57 of the State List to the provisions of Entry No. 35 of List III means that if there is an existing law or an earlier law made by Parliament laying down the principles on which taxes on mechanically propelled vehicles should be levied, then any State legislation enacted with reference to Entry No. 57 of the State List must conform to the principles of taxation laid down in the existing law or the earlier law made by Parliament.
................
Learned counsel for the applicants was unable to point out any "existing law" as defined by Article 366 of the Constitution or any law made by Parliament laying down the principles on which taxes on mechanically propelled vehicles should be levied. Indeed, at present there is none. In the absence of any such legislation, the State Legislature was fully competent to enact the Amending Act in the exercise of its legislative power under Entry No. 57 of the State List. The Amending Act did not, therefore, clearly require any assent of the President.


*** The verdict from Hon.HC ***
12. For the foregoing reasons, our conclusion is that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee in each is fixed at Rs. 150/-. The outstanding amount of the security deposit after deduction of costs shall be refunded to the petitioners in each case.
sachinpk is offline  
Old 10th February 2015, 16:02   #1177
BHPian
 
vinayrathore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: DL-9C/KA-01
Posts: 528
Thanked: 306 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Quote:
Originally Posted by sachinpk View Post
Karnataka government I don't think is doing a charity business here.
Sir, Governments are here to do business or to take care of the general well being of the people? We are living in a country where the government is supposed to be "For the People, by the people and of the people" and the current case where the "out of state" people (mostly techies) which are being accused of evading taxes are not hardcore criminals but only trying to make ends meet in this already crushing economic scenario. The way you put it, seems the main motive of the out of state people is to come to KA to evade tax.

I agree many of them make good money but do you think the system is as straight as you depict it to be? I for one cant imagine going to electricity office and pay the bill standing in a queue when I have a far easier way of paying it online let alone going around the RTO offices to sort this out.

Its the government's job to make this process easier. If it happens, majority will be happy to pay taxes which are just.

PS: I have a 10 year old Hyundai Accent and the tax computed as per the KA rule would be approx. 90k. and my IDV is 2 lacs.
vinayrathore is offline  
Old 10th February 2015, 16:12   #1178
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,137
Thanked: 674 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Quote:
Originally Posted by theexperthand
But they did seize with out serving a notice and waiting to see if the person who gets the notice serviced will act or not.
Please provide which ever law prohibits seizure of the vehicle. I quoted the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Act's provisions for vehicle check and seizure. If you have another law which curtails this right, please list it out. Yeah, serving a notice to a person who does not have any address proof, and can scoot to another state with the vehicle where Karnataka RTO would find it tough to bring him back. You did mention about courts NOT sending warrants for arrests. Courts operate differently, and RTO operates differently.

Quote:
In the previous pages itself, there are two examples where they forced the victims to pay the tax, even after the court stay.
I have explained the procedures for appeal - including approaching the court. Did they try that way, out? I don't know! Have a contempt of court petition filed in the court?, I don't know. So no point in debating that here.

Quote:
You have stated 3 times that these (parking stickers, company stickers etc) are proof of evidence acceptable to RTO.
Acceptable to the RTO, to prove this case - of tax evasion - in a court of law. Will this evidence be accepted by the courts?, some body needs to try that out. Either the RTO or one of the accused. So far no one has tried that out, and the RTO folks collected the tax. To be frank, the collection of parking stickers etc. was a way for the RTO to make the accused "confess" (i.e admit that they did a crime). And once the "confession" comes out, the guilty will not have the where withal to fight.

Quote:
Since the tax refund is also handled by RTO, don't you think these same evidence should be enough to claim refund also? Or, is it separate law for RTO and separate law for common man?
Evidence for each activity would be different. The laws in India are applicable for all citizens and organisations. Please take time to read up, as these are very detailed and go through a tough process of legislation. This is not like those funny IT company's HR policies, which would sound all "legal" and "authoritative", but would not have much meat or whose validity itself is proven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinayrathore
Sir, Governments are here to do business or to take care of the general well being of the people? We are living in a country where the government is supposed to be "For the People, by the people and of the people"
There is also another aspect to this. Karnataka government of today is elected by people who are voters in Karnataka. The politicians of Karnataka have to take care of their voters first. Because ultimately it would be these people who the elected leaders have to answer, and on whose vote the politicians depend. What benefit does Karnataka government get by allowing the migrant population to roam around paying the tax dues? They do not vote any ways, and no much revenue comes from them as well. Given a chance legal loop holes are identified and taxes evaded.

Quote:
where the "out of state" people (mostly techies) which are being accused of evading taxes are not hardcore criminals but only trying to make ends meet in this already crushing economic scenario
Evading tax is a crime. And the "techies" from out side the state, also in my humble opinion made a mistake. Even though being the one among the largest work force available, none of them wanted to vote and be counted. A politician would try to change things, if he finds that would bring him votes. Techies were not interested in voting. In the area where I stayed, it had a large Malayali presence. The local MLA - an active chap used to scout around, identify issues and fix them. The Malayalis repeatedly pestered him with demands after demands. But this chap gave top priority to a neighbouring slum. Malayalis were dejected. And the MLA told them, next time get into the election rolls and vote for him. At present the slum dwellers vote for him en-masse. His logic was simple, Malayalis want every thing in their favour, but expect no help during elections. After this remark, Malayalis all lined up to register up as voters, the MLA won again and he did keep his promise (water laying, drainage making etc. etc.).

Emotional appeals may look fine here, but it may not work out especially when dealing in court cases or legislative process; or for that matter in regional politics.

Last edited by sachinpk : 10th February 2015 at 16:23. Reason: Added response to vinayrathore
sachinpk is offline   (1) Thanks
Old 10th February 2015, 16:16   #1179
Senior - BHPian
 
svsantosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hosur
Posts: 3,309
Thanked: 1,388 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Hosur is roughly 25Km away from Electronic City, Inside TN border. 1000s of the town residents like me take their bikes/cars to work to bangalore each day.

I have many examples in previous pages in this thread, where, just like everyone who was way-laid by RTO hired thugs - were forced to cough up a Lakh Rs or similar.

After a good friend and a Hosur TBhpian was caught outside Forum Mall (Kormangala), he experienced Kormangala RTO chief's trouble. He sat down with all hosur/TN address proofs, ID cards, and after a 1 long hour meeting this is what he heard. (He was let away without a penny paid)

Law makers were forcing RTO dept to fill the coffers on the Govt on a daily basis, by hook or crook, if the RTO guys didnt stop/fine X # of cars on a daily basis - they were taken to task. Pressure from MP/MLA/Ministers were enormous on RTO dept to collect crores from Non-KA cars.

God knows who assumed this one time effort with solve the states revenue deficit issue in the long run!! And simple logic tells there is nothing to loose/risk for the local govt - non KA car owners most likely means non-voting public - so its a win-win for Tresury & govt/RTO.
svsantosh is offline   (5) Thanks
Old 10th February 2015, 16:25   #1180
BHPian
 
Ajitsingh208's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Pune
Posts: 209
Thanked: 101 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

I think the exisiting law has a loop hole,
The MV act states that the new vehcile needs to be registered at the place where the owner normally resides & where the vehicle will be kept.

Now when you see the Movement between states clause:
MV Act states that- The vehcile needs to be kept in the state for a period of 11 months.

KA Act - In respect of MV registered outside the state which are in the State for a period exceeding 30 days

So If i move out of the state and come back in, I am technically not liable for tax.

Now one can go on about how this is unfair on a State, but sadly there are many rules which are unfair on us.
We salaried people are the only ones to be taxed as it is. The big businesses find N no. of loopholes to not pay thousands of crores. No one confiscates there cars or raises any questions.

I am really waiting for the new MV Act, hoping it gives a respite to common citizens.
Ajitsingh208 is offline  
Old 10th February 2015, 16:40   #1181
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,964
Thanked: 1,424 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Quote:
Originally Posted by sachinpk View Post
I found a very old case (1965 vintage) - Phoolchand And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 20 October, 1965 , which was heard by the Hon. High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
This case (looks to me) was about someone buying vehicles in state 1 and operating them in state 2, and not paying road tax in either state. Our judiciary by and large don't take such shenanigans lightly. :-)
binand is online now   (1) Thanks
Old 10th February 2015, 17:20   #1182
Distinguished - BHPian
 
saket77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ranchi
Posts: 3,189
Thanked: 4,198 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

First, there should be a reasonable and uniform road tax in India. It is clear that road tax collected is never used to construct roads.

Secondly, private vehicles should not be made the scapegoat and should be allowed to ply anywhere in India without such idiotic logic. I can pay my road taxes to one Govt. only. If there is no mechanism to share the tax among the Govt, it is none of my business. How can one justify me,an individual, to pay same tax (which is in effect) multiple times because of inefficient machinery of the Govt? This is the worst (or the best) example of the literal meaning of 'Double Taxation'. I paid to my RTO for my driving licence (as fees) too. Will that also be disputed sometime in near future by another state because it did not contribute any money to their RTOs? So, next my DL will automatically become invalid because it was issued by some other state and I paid a different RTO?

WB has already a 5 year tax scheme along with LTT of 15 years. If nothing above, I don't see any reason that why that cannot be adopted by other states and change it to yearly basis rather than 5 years. In fact, why even an year. I should have the liberty to pay only for the time I am in in the state - be it 10 years or 10 months. Why should I pay for an entire year if I am in there for only 6 months? Defies all logic in the world. Why should I be paying every time for RTO's inefficiency?

Clearly, defending the KA RTO on this aspect is not acceptable and WRONG because:

1. They have not accepted the toll receipts as proof of spending less than a month in KA. That is written at least hundred times in this thread itself and on the newspaper link I am sharing.

2. They have abused people. That itself is in violation of many laws.

3. Not only abused, but they have thrashed and beat up people too. What do I say over this? Does this comes in the purview of RTO as well?

4. Read this:

Quote:
Anandhu Karattuparambil was in for a rude shock on June 17 this year when, enroute from Pune to his hometown in Kerala, he was stopped in Bangalore. Anandhu had recently been posted to Bangalore from Pune and was yet to bring his car to the state. On July 17, RTO officials stopped him while he was entering Bangalore and demanded to see his documents.

Despite having toll receipts from Maharashtra issued the previous day, his car documents were seized and he was asked to pay LTT for the vehicle. According to him, the officials even took his office ID Card. Anandhu said “I was returning from Pune on July 15. I have produced the toll bills of Mahrarashtra, Belgum-Dharwad Expressway and Hubli-Dharwad Bypass. I showed them the Pollution Under Control certificate issued in Maharashtra, but they have not accepted anything
Source: http://www.newindianexpress.com/stat...cle2423620.ece



RTO's defence in this matter was it poses a security problem as 'outside vehicles are plying in the city with no records with them.' Then go and centralize your department across the country where you can have details of all vehicles by the registration number. I thought this is 2015, or is it yet for the RTOs?

If this goes on to trend, looks like its full stop to interstate travel in our own vehicles and TBHP travelogues!
saket77 is offline   (2) Thanks
Old 10th February 2015, 17:43   #1183
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,137
Thanked: 674 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Quote:
Originally Posted by saket77
First, there should be a reasonable and uniform road tax in India. It is clear that road tax collected is never used to construct roads.
Stating that in Team-BHP forum is not going to make that happen.

Quote:
WB has already a 5 year tax scheme along with LTT of 15 years. If nothing above, I don't see any reason that why that cannot be adopted by other states and change it to yearly basis rather than 5 years.
How each state deals with Motor Vehicle Taxation, looks like is determined by the state government. What is good for WB Govt. may not be good for Karnataka government.

As for all the other issues, abusive officials, incorrect seizures and other violations - all of them have applicable laws using which such actions can be prosecuted and if found guilty the charged officials given punishments. The procedure is cumbersome. But if all this is an "excuse" to avoid paying the tax dues, that may not work with any government any where in India.
sachinpk is offline  
Old 10th February 2015, 17:44   #1184
Senior - BHPian
 
humyum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Leicester/Mumbai
Posts: 2,306
Thanked: 2,186 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Quote:
Originally Posted by sachinpk View Post

What proof will Karnataka Govt. have, when you go and tell them that your are leaving the state and need a tax refund. They are not fools to believe what ever a person says, and just give the money and say good bye. So registering your vehicle in Karnataka is a way for you to later claim refund. The state is happy if the road tax comes in. So if you plan to ask for tax refunds, plan to re-register your vehicle. Or check with RTO (use RTI if required), to figure out what other letters/documents can prove that you are moving out of the state.
Oh so when we present proof of our less than one month stay in Bangalore, our documents are impounded ( I have given links, posted incidents from people which you conveniently ignore ) but when we have to leave the state and demand our road tax back, the government wants proof.

WE ARE NOT FOOLS to pay a lakh odd rupees for filling someone's coffers.

Secondly, the Hon Judge has already said what all of us are saying since long, Let me copy paste in bold for you since you seem to be not getting the point.

"The Judge has questioned he validity of the Amendment-Stating that there is no consent from president on this.He also said that the said amendment ultra vires and it should be quashed.

The Judge further said that a private vehicle can ply any where in the country after paying LTT in one state.

The Judge has asked the Transport Secretary to be present in the court on Monday to explain on how this amendment was passed without assent of the President"



Quote:
Originally Posted by sachinpk View Post
Did Karnataka government force any to join the software field and land up in Bengaluru?? No, am I right. People came in by their own free will, liking the place. So now they are all here, how about paying the tax dues as well? Or is Bengaluru some kind of tourist spot where people come, litter the place and move on?
They are citizens of India and they can do whatever they want. Secondly, they came in for some years and they will pay tax for those years, how about asking for payments for the duration of the stay and not 15 years?



Quote:
Originally Posted by sachinpk View Post
The whole scheme of Life Time Tax is not unique to Karnataka. Every state now works on the basis of LTT, because of its easiness to collect. And there are provisions to get back the tax in case of moving out of the state. Why should Karnataka alone bend over backwards to have a unique "One year payment" scheme, which they would find tough to implement? The people who I mentioned were staying in Bengaluru for 8 years. A person staying for 8 years did not bother to pay the LTT, until the RTO came knocking home. Fat chance such people would pay, if they are given chances to make yearly payments.
Because Bangalore is the one which has a 1 month rule, not all of India, that's why Bangalore needs to bend backwards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sachinpk View Post
Karnataka government or its RTO are not the in-laws of any citizen in Karnataka. It may be these kind of attitude which made the RTO crack its whip, and go ahead with the tax due collection, with a vengeance. And that left many an IT employee who had these attitude problems standing on the road, wondering what next to do.
Sorry, they started this campaign to only fill their coffers. Karnataka government does not own the state to make the laws at its own whims and fancies that has clearly stated by the judge.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sachinpk View Post
How can collecting tax dues become a thuggery, my friend?
I am not your tax buddy, am I still your friend ?

On a serious note, collecting taxes based on new found laws created out of the blue, implemented with a whip, without any reasoning is thuggery.


We are going round and round in circles, so I will stop posting.

There is a saying in English "We will Win, Not Immediately, but Definitely"
humyum is offline   (3) Thanks
Old 10th February 2015, 18:02   #1185
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 1,137
Thanked: 674 Times
Default re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore

Quote:
Originally Posted by humyum
Oh so when we present proof of our less than one month stay in Bangalore, our documents are impounded
The documents etc. were impounded to ensure that you appear before the RTO to contest the case or file the tax. People could have taken the route of contesting the case. Why don't you understand that part? Either the vehicles gets impounded, or the document gets impounded.

Quote:
The Judge has questioned he validity of the Amendment-Stating that there is no consent from president on this.He also said that the said amendment ultra vires and it should be quashed.
The judge said the amendment should be quashed. Has he ordered it yet? He has just given a stay order asking RTO to stop the drive until this WP is completely heard and the verdict given. The judge's observations (or what he says) when giving a stay order, is not an order by itself. The Hon.HC has given three weeks for the state to prepare its response. And they would file their response - perhaps using the same case which I have quoted above. Hon.HC has taken a different view on the validity of the amended act, but that was long way back. If no major amendments have happened, Karnataka Government pleader can cite this case to prove his point. But that any way, we will have to leave it aside. Let both parties come with their own legal points and debate it in court. But for the more common people like us; the judge has NOT formally quashed the Amendment Act. He may late do it or not do it, but this is the current status.

Quote:
The Judge has asked the Transport Secretary to be present in the court on Monday to explain on how this amendment was passed without assent of the President"
Will e-mail the case which was handled by Hon.HC of Madhya Pradesh to him. Perhaps that would give him some ideas . But next question is did the Transport Secretary appear in court on Monday (09th Feb??), and what were his statements? As per what I saw on the court's web site, the court is yet to give another date for hearing. Silverwood can confirm on that.

Quote:
They are citizens of India and they can do whatever they want. Secondly, they came in for some years and they will pay tax for those years, how about asking for payments for the duration of the stay and not 15 years?
Then how will you justify LTT which even your home state collects? If I am not mistaken very few states do NOT collect LTT these days. And when LTT is collected, there is a provision to get it reimbursed as well. That process is complex, but that does not mean there is no process to get the refund.

Quote:
Karnataka government does not own the state to make the laws at its own whims and fancies that has clearly stated by the judge.
Will have to wait for the final order issued by the learned Hon.HC judge. What he said at the moment, has not been part of any formal order. So I guess we will have to wait for the next hearing.

Yeah, agree with you. I guess all of us have stated what ever points we have. Now let us just watch the trial.

Last edited by sachinpk : 10th February 2015 at 18:03.
sachinpk is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Buy car in state or out of state (Major price difference) autoenthusiast The Indian Car Scene 49 14th July 2017 01:21
Karnataka RTO - sms RTO to get Vehicle details 71Convertible The Indian Car Scene 83 8th October 2016 08:09
Where should I sell the car: State of Registration or Current State? m_upreti The Indian Car Scene 50 12th July 2016 17:38
RTO problems for transfering in own state vipinshetty The Indian Car Scene 5 20th February 2013 17:13


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 19:37.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks