[SILVERWOOD]

Dear Friends,

The arguments are over from both sides and the Division Bench has reserved its Judgement.

The same should be pronounced before the Honorable Court breaks for summer vacation from Monday, the 2nd May, 2016.

Please pray that we emerge victorious this time as well and victory of Justice & Fairness Prevails.

Jai Hind.

Waseem.

[suresh_gs]

Originally Posted by dinu2506

Thanks Suresh.
The ex-showroom price - is it the price when the car was bought in 2011 or the current ex-showroom price of the Yeti?

It is the ex showroom price of the car at the time of purchase. Do remember to get the original copy of the invoice to the RTO in case you wish to pay the road tax after the 1 yr slab expires.

[ssateesh]

Originally Posted by SILVERWOOD

Dear Friends,

The arguments are over from both sides and the Division Bench has reserved its Judgement.

The same should be pronounced before the Honorable Court breaks for summer vacation from Monday, the 2nd May, 2016.

Please pray that we emerge victorious this time as well and victory of Justice & Fairness Prevails.

Jai Hind.

Waseem.

Waseem, just curious. What kind of arguments did Govt. put forth for defending the 30 day rule ?

[SILVERWOOD]

Originally Posted by ssateesh

Waseem, just curious. What kind of arguments did Govt. put forth for defending the 30 day rule ?

It is very difficult to sum up the proceedings that lasted for almost 6 hours.Below are the excerpts of the same.

1,The Additional Advocate General (AAG) started the discussion by saying that Road tax is a state subject and the state legislature was competent enough to pass this amendment.
2,The AAG also said that many residents of Karnataka (Bangalore in Particular) are registering their cars in Pondichery and Goa to evade taxation.
3,He cited many sections and sub sections of KMV Taxation act 1957 which empowers the state to levy road tax.
4,The bench asked the learned few questions and he fumbled while answering.

Q1:What if someone with Non Ka Registered vehicle wants to visit the state for 3 months.?
A:That person has to pay entire LTT on 31st day and claim refund after he leaves the state.
Q2:What if the same person wants to come to the state for 2 more months after 6 months.?
A:He has to again pay LTT and claim refund after going back.
Q3:What is the basis of 30 days.?Why not 90/120 days.?
A:No answer.
Q4:What about Mahesh Gandhi's case.?Why didnt the govt appeal.?
A:We appealed and it was dismissed.
Q5:What is the tracking mechanism of 30 days.?
A:Toll booths,PUC etc.
Q5:What if toll booths do not exists.?.
A:AAG said that there is a provision that a Non Ka Registered owner can pay tax for 7 days of plying in KA which is nominal.There is another provision tp pay tax from 7-30 days which is also nominal.
Q6:What is the said person is only transiting KA (From Mumbai to Hyd and he/she decides to stop in Humnabad for a night).?
A:He still has to pay the 7 days tax because he is using KA roads.
Q7:What if that day happens to be a holiday.?
A:No Answer
Q8:The road from Mumbai to Hyd is a tolled road and he is paying Toll:If that person pays that 7 day tax, is he exempted from paying Toll.?
A:AAG said he still has to pay toll as these roads are managed by NHAI.
Q9:If that person is paying toll tax for using roads managed by NHAI,Why should he pay the the 7 day tax as well.?
A:Irrelevant answer.

The AAG also argued that registration and taxation are two different subjects where as the Bench refused to believe.The learned senior Judge asked a simple question.Can a person register a car with a No. of any state without paying LTT.?The AAG replied in negative.

The bench said that the rule laid down by CMV in section 47 which says that person has 12 months of time to pay tax and register the vehicle has some rationale and the state's amendment of 30 days was based on assumption that a person who has crossed 30 days will spend another 15 years in Karnataka.

The bench came down heavily on the AAG for the usage of the word NOTWITHSTANDING in the said amendment which was quashed by the learned Single Judge.

The bench also said that registration and payment of Tax go hand in hand and registration is dependent on payment of LTT.

Our counsel argued on the freedom of movement which our constitution guarantees and this amendment was against the spirit of our freedom.

Waseem.....

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by SILVERWOOD

.......
The bench also said that registration and payment of Tax go hand in hand and registration is dependent on payment of LTT......

While I appreciate the bench grilling the state's counsel on finer points, the above is a very debatable interpretation when it comes to re-registering a vehicle already registered in another state.

The CMV doesn't say anywhere explicitly that LTT and re-registration are tied together. If that was so, shouldn't there be NO separate fees for (re)registration given one's already paying taxes that should cover the whole process?

P.S. Just looking at answers to questions 1 & 2 demonstrates how absurdly illogical the whole RTO argument is.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

The CMV doesn't say anywhere explicitly that LTT and re-registration are tied together.

The CMV Act cannot talk of taxation since it is a state subject. It is the KMVT Act that links these two together.

[SILVERWOOD]

Today's TOI.

Waseem

[SILVERWOOD]

Today's Indian Express.

Waseem

[SILVERWOOD]

Article in barandbench.com

Owners of vehicles in Bangalore registered in other states will be closely watching the verdict of the Karnataka High Court in the matter relating to payment of lifetime tax.

Today, a Division Bench of Justices Jayant Patel and BV Nagarathna reserved judgment in the matter.

In 2014, the state government introduced the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, seeking to levy a lifetime tax on those vehicles plying in the state which were registered outside Karnataka. The amendment affected a number of people travelling to and from Bangalore on work purposes, prompting them to file writ petitions in the High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the Act.

The provisions relevant to the matter are Sections 46 and 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, and Section 3 of the KMVT Act, read with Part A5 of the Schedule. Section 46 states that a vehicle registered in any state shall not be required to be registered anywhere else in India. Section 47 contemplates the assignment of a new registration mark for owners whose vehicles have been registered in one state, but have been kept in another for a period exceeding 12 months.

The explanation to Section 3 of the KMVT Act provides that owners of vehicles registered in other states and kept in Karnataka for more than 31 days would be liable to pay a lifetime tax.

When the matter came up for hearing last month, a single bench of Justice Anand Byrareddy ruled in favour of the petitioners and declared the Act unconstitutional. The court observed in that order that the levy of lifetime tax is directly linked to the registration of the vehicle, an aspect covered by the Central MV Act. Thus, it was held that the state does not have the legislative competence to pass a law levying a lifetime tax on vehicles which are already registered elsewhere.

As a consequence of the order, owners of non-Karnataka registered vehicles would not have to pay a lifetime tax until 12 months, after which the vehicles would have to be re-registered as per Section 47 of the MV Act. However, the state government challenged the decision of the single judge.

When the matter came up for hearing today, Additional Advocate General AS Ponnanna led the arguments for the state. He argued that registration and taxation were two different aspects, a submission the bench was reluctant to accept. Justice Nagarathna went on to ask a few questions.

“How will you determine whether a person has been in the state for more than 31 days? What if his work requires him to keep travelling to and from the state?”

In response, the AAG submitted that the KMVT Act provides for a refund of the lifetime tax, as per Section 7(3). However, the bench said that the provision would only apply for owners of vehicles registered in the state. The bench then reserved judgment.

Senior Advocate Jayakumar S Patil, along with Karan Joseph, appeared for one of the petitioners. Outside the courts, the ‘Drive Without Borders’ campaign has been garnering support across the city.

During today’s hearing, it appeared that the Bench was not in favour of overturning the earlier decision. However, it is not certain as to when the bench will pronounce its judgement, with the Karnataka High Court closing for summer vacations on May 2.

On a lighter note, at the end of today’s proceedings, Justice Patel, who was transferred from the Gujarat High Court in February this year remarked in jest,

“I was thinking of bringing my car here from Gujarat, but now I will have to think twice!”



http://barandbench.com/karnataka-hig...-lifetime-tax/

[commonman]

Waseem Bhai, I think the word 'kept in the state' is not the right phrase.
A vehicle, even revisiting Karnataka after 30 days is liable to pay the LTT road tax of Karnataka. That is the most hilarious part.
People of nearby states, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra, Telengana, Kerala and Goa cannot come to Karnataka twice in the same car. If the vehicle comes again,after 30 days,then the vehicle is liable to be charged Life time tax. What a draconian law these people can come up with.
I think the judge got the point.
Let us pray "Drive without borders" gets more power.

[rattanw]

Truly hope the Hon'ble court follows the spirit of the constitution of India and doesn't get misled by the superfluous and ridiculous arguments by the State Govt. This is truly an outrageous law and must be sent back to where it belongs, i.e. in the trash can. Ideally the state government should have let the matter rest, after all, the state govt has raked in huge sums of money during the two years or so when this law was implemented brutally and without regard by its officials.

Such laws set a dangerous precedent and if allowed to prevail, seek to make inter-state movement of people for short term a nightmare.

[SILVERWOOD]

Originally Posted by SILVERWOOD

On a lighter note, at the end of today’s proceedings, Justice Patel, who was transferred from the Gujarat High Court in February this year remarked in jest,

“I was thinking of bringing my car here from Gujarat, but now I will have to think twice!”

As they say "Behind every joke there's a little bit of truth".

Waseem.

[Altocumulus]

Waseem bhai. Any update on this. I am leaving for Bangalore the day after driving down from Kolkata. Does the judgement still hold or we need to wait for the court to re open again ?

[humyum]

Waseem, Kudos for taking this through. One more scenario from my side

What If I stayed during my summer vacation in Bangalore for 60 days, I paid road tax as they are asking, but I don't register my car in KA, how can I claim the road tax back if the car is not registered as road tax is returned once you deregister your car in Karnataka, show them that proof of the duration of registration and deregisteration along with the duration of the time you stayed in Karnataka by paying the road tax based on which they calculate the duration you have used the KA roads and return the road tax back deducting the amount that you used KA roads.

IF there is no re registration, how can we claim the road tax back ? and If I have to register in KA , does it make sense that I register in KA even if I stayed only for 2 months ?

[silversteed]

Originally Posted by humyum

IF there is no re registration, how can we claim the road tax back ? and If I have to register in KA , does it make sense that I register in KA even if I stayed only for 2 months ?

You cannot obtain a refund. For the second part, it doesn't, and that's one of the reasons this matter reached the court