Out-of-state cars can run on Karnataka roads for 1 year!

NPV · 11th March 2016, 09:38

Waseem & team hats off to your perseverance

Today's first page of Indian Express, Bangalore edition carries this news:
Much-Hated Lifetime Tax Norm for Non-KA Vehicles Struck Down

Quote:

What It Means

Any Vehicle registered outside Karnataka can now ply here for a full year without paying lifetime tax
If the vehicle remains here for more than a year, you pay lifetime tax as laid out in the Motor Vehicles Act, and have your vehicle registered in Karnataka

binand · 11th March 2016, 09:59

What a victory!

Some links (have tried to pick articles that are dissimilar):

The two important things (we still don't have the judgment copy, so I'm reading from the press clippings):

1. "The court said the basis of the government’s decision still subsists and the payment of lifetime tax continues to be dependent on registration or re-registration in terms of sections 40 and 47 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988." - we definitely are back to the 12-month system for re-registration (section 47 of the MV Act). But can KA demand payment of tax (again) for re-registrations? The pre-amendment KA MVT Act does not cover this case, in my reading.

2. "The bench said the Explanation 2 (extracts of the amendment) to section 3 of the KMVT Act inserted by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2014 is unconstitutional and ultra vires.". This should lead to people who have paid up, to demand their money back with interest from the KA government. I expect this could also lead to KA government appealing this decision.

noopster · 11th March 2016, 11:13

Congratulations to Silverwood and everyone else who picthed in for the effort! One article mentioned that Waseem also quit his job to pursue this noble aim- is that true? In that case it is even more commendable.

The grace period of 1 year is a sensible compromise between the draconian 1 month rule and never changing your registration. There are several plausible scenarios where you may have to move to a city in another state for a period of a few months (family member ill, short-term assignment at work) that most of us have gone through. It's a relief that these genuine cases will be exempt from paying LTT in multiple states.

I trust that Team BHPians and most drivers in general are responsible enough to adhere to the law in spirit and not try to hoodwink the authorities by misusing the privilege. There are enough ways around it but the only caveat I would issue to someone intrepid enough to try is that cops are not stupid. They look for patterns, and once convinced they have found one, the law will be merciless.

The Rationalist · 11th March 2016, 11:39

A big thank you to SILVERWOOD and others who were behind this effort. While I may never need to make use of this , there are umpteen number of people who have been terrorized by this nonsense. How I wish Pan India gets a uniform tax rate and the people will be dissuaded to register cars in states with low taxes. But I wonder how the RTO can find the vehicle was in Karnataka for more than a year? Most can just cross the border to get a PUC check or get the car serviced from the neighbouring state, produce toll receipts and find a loop hole.

NPX · 11th March 2016, 12:07

Congratulations to SILVERWOOD and all on this judgement.
IMO the main deterrent for people to get their car registered in other state is that the procedure to get refund on their already paid LTT.
A person who has moved to different state how he is supposed to go back and get his LTT refund back and RTOs there make sure that procedure is so lengthy that you yourself forget about the refund.

There should be a law which makes it mandatory for previous RTO to transfer the LTT, after just deductions, to the new RTO where the owner wants to get his/her car registered. This will save hard earned money of the owners shifting to different states who are forced to get their car registered again without getting refund on already paid LTT.

SILVERWOOD · 11th March 2016, 13:15

Dear Mods,

Thank you for reopening this thread.

Yesterday's decision from the Honorable High Court is a victory of Justice and Fairness which a state is constitutionally bound to upheld.

It is a victory for the common man whose right to freedom of movement is guaranteed by the constitution.

It is a victory for everyone who believes in Drive Without Borders and above all,the utmost belief should be INDIA FIRST, INDIAN FIRST.

Lets see everyone as fellow countrymen irrespective of their statehood, attire, caste, creed & Culture.

Jai Hind

Waseem Memon.

anoop.nair · 11th March 2016, 13:58

Finally Justice delivered to the Non KA Registration Vehicle Owners. Quite a breather and big shout to Waseem Memon.

This also means introduction of yearly / part payment measures for taxation. This will instill new hopes on the ultimately dream called 'Drive Without Borders'. From what I understood, the movement is now targeting against illegal handling charges collection at dealership.

arun_josie · 11th March 2016, 14:31

Awesome job SILVERWOOD!!!

Thanks to you and your team for the time, effort, dedication that you put on this case. Kudos!!!

ashis89 · 11th March 2016, 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by SILVERWOOD

Dear Mods,

Thank you for reopening this thread.

Yesterday's decision from the Honorable High Court is a victory of Justice and Fairness which a state is constitutionally bound to upheld.

It is a victory for the common man whose right to freedom of movement is guaranteed by the constitution.

It is a victory for everyone who believes in Drive Without Borders and above all,the utmost belief should be INDIA FIRST, INDIAN FIRST.

Lets see everyone as fellow countrymen irrespective of their statehood, attire, caste, creed & Culture.

Jai Hind

Waseem Memon.

Congratulations and hats off for your efforts, Waseem bhai.

Is there any update for Telangana State where the Government had plans for introducing yearly taxes?

regards,
Ashis

SILVERWOOD · 11th March 2016, 16:06

4 out of 5 English dailies covered our story today.

Waseem Memon

johannskaria · 11th March 2016, 18:51

Attached herewith PDF of the Judgement for reference!
Interesting observations by the court.
(Starts from page 10)

Case Number: WP 28063/2015
Judge(s): ANAND BYRAREDDY
Date of Judgment: 10-Mar-2016
Petitioner: SRI JAGADEV BIRADAR
Respondent: STATE OF KARNATAKA
Bench: Bengaluru

WP28063-15-10-03-2016.pdf

anandtheleo · 11th March 2016, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by johannskaria

Attached herewith PDF of the Judgement for reference!
Interesting observations by the court.
(Starts from page 10)

Case Number: WP 28063/2015
Judge(s): ANAND BYRAREDDY
Date of Judgment: 10-Mar-2016
Petitioner: SRI JAGADEV BIRADAR
Respondent: STATE OF KARNATAKA
Bench: Bengaluru

Attachment 1484814

Thanks for the PDF, went through and some hard hitting points by the judge.

To quickly summarize -

Void Ab Initio (Illegal right from day one, I believe then refund should be provided to those who paid the taxes till date)
No Presidential Assent for the amendment KA government made (what was the government thinking )
Illegal act (Shame on the government)
It is for the owner to declare the date of entry (No RTO can be judge/executioner hereafter )
finality of a previous judgement that was not challenged

Altocumulus · 11th March 2016, 20:35

This couldn't have come in a better time. I am moving to Bangalore next month and was contemplating selling my 1 yr 3 months old Ritz because I would be required to pay 75k+ as LTT specially after paying nearly 1.5L as deposit for a house. Now I can take the car and pay the tax after 6 months saving

Thank you Waseem

fiestarry · 11th March 2016, 20:55

My inference from the judgement is that
' the MV Act merely requires the owner of a vehicle exceeding 12 months stay in another state, to apply and obtain regn mark in the new state. No need to pay road tax again'

Am I far off the mark ? Legalese is a foreign language for many of us !

batterylow · 11th March 2016, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiestarry

My inference from the judgement is that
' the MV Act merely requires the owner of a vehicle exceeding 12 months stay in another state, to apply and obtain regn mark in the new state. No need to pay road tax again'

Am I far off the mark ? Legalese is a foreign language for many of us !

As far as I know, to obtain a new registration number, one needs to pay the road tax.

11th March 2016, 09:59	#2
binand Senior - BHPian Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Bangalore Posts: 3,549 Thanked: 5,520 Times	Re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore What a victory! Some links (have tried to pick articles that are dissimilar): http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/...cle8338784.ece http://www.deccanherald.com/content/...-need-not.html http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/...cle8338786.ece The two important things (we still don't have the judgment copy, so I'm reading from the press clippings): 1. "The court said the basis of the government’s decision still subsists and the payment of lifetime tax continues to be dependent on registration or re-registration in terms of sections 40 and 47 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988." - we definitely are back to the 12-month system for re-registration (section 47 of the MV Act). But can KA demand payment of tax (again) for re-registrations? The pre-amendment KA MVT Act does not cover this case, in my reading. 2. "The bench said the Explanation 2 (extracts of the amendment) to section 3 of the KMVT Act inserted by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2014 is unconstitutional and ultra vires.". This should lead to people who have paid up, to demand their money back with interest from the KA government. I expect this could also lead to KA government appealing this decision.
	(10) Thanks

11th March 2016, 11:13	#3
noopster Distinguished - BHPian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Pune Posts: 9,237 Thanked: 12,903 Times View My Garage	Re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore Congratulations to Silverwood and everyone else who picthed in for the effort! One article mentioned that Waseem also quit his job to pursue this noble aim- is that true? In that case it is even more commendable. The grace period of 1 year is a sensible compromise between the draconian 1 month rule and never changing your registration. There are several plausible scenarios where you may have to move to a city in another state for a period of a few months (family member ill, short-term assignment at work) that most of us have gone through. It's a relief that these genuine cases will be exempt from paying LTT in multiple states. I trust that Team BHPians and most drivers in general are responsible enough to adhere to the law in spirit and not try to hoodwink the authorities by misusing the privilege. There are enough ways around it but the only caveat I would issue to someone intrepid enough to try is that cops are not stupid. They look for patterns, and once convinced they have found one, the law will be merciless.
	(25) Thanks

11th March 2016, 11:39	#4
The Rationalist BANNED Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Kochi Posts: 924 Thanked: 7,279 Times	Re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore A big thank you to SILVERWOOD and others who were behind this effort. While I may never need to make use of this , there are umpteen number of people who have been terrorized by this nonsense. How I wish Pan India gets a uniform tax rate and the people will be dissuaded to register cars in states with low taxes. But I wonder how the RTO can find the vehicle was in Karnataka for more than a year? Most can just cross the border to get a PUC check or get the car serviced from the neighbouring state, produce toll receipts and find a loop hole.
	(3) Thanks

11th March 2016, 12:07	#5
NPX BHPian Join Date: Feb 2016 Location: HR 05, GJ 06 Posts: 103 Thanked: 186 Times	Re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore Congratulations to SILVERWOOD and all on this judgement. IMO the main deterrent for people to get their car registered in other state is that the procedure to get refund on their already paid LTT. A person who has moved to different state how he is supposed to go back and get his LTT refund back and RTOs there make sure that procedure is so lengthy that you yourself forget about the refund. There should be a law which makes it mandatory for previous RTO to transfer the LTT, after just deductions, to the new RTO where the owner wants to get his/her car registered. This will save hard earned money of the owners shifting to different states who are forced to get their car registered again without getting refund on already paid LTT.
	(6) Thanks

11th March 2016, 13:15	#6
SILVERWOOD Senior - BHPian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: BANG-A-LURE. Posts: 1,197 Thanked: 4,657 Times	Re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore Dear Mods, Thank you for reopening this thread. Yesterday's decision from the Honorable High Court is a victory of Justice and Fairness which a state is constitutionally bound to upheld. It is a victory for the common man whose right to freedom of movement is guaranteed by the constitution. It is a victory for everyone who believes in Drive Without Borders and above all,the utmost belief should be INDIA FIRST, INDIAN FIRST. Lets see everyone as fellow countrymen irrespective of their statehood, attire, caste, creed & Culture. Jai Hind Waseem Memon.
	(171) Thanks

11th March 2016, 13:58	#7
anoop.nair BHPian Join Date: May 2012 Location: MH14-KA01-TN19 Posts: 75 Thanked: 33 Times	infamous taxing rule is squashed terming illegal Finally Justice delivered to the Non KA Registration Vehicle Owners. Quite a breather and big shout to Waseem Memon. This also means introduction of yearly / part payment measures for taxation. This will instill new hopes on the ultimately dream called 'Drive Without Borders'. From what I understood, the movement is now targeting against illegal handling charges collection at dealership.
	(4) Thanks

11th March 2016, 14:31	#8
arun_josie Distinguished - BHPian Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Bangalore Posts: 3,735 Thanked: 13,512 Times	Re: infamous taxing rule is squashed terming illegal Awesome job SILVERWOOD!!! Thanks to you and your team for the time, effort, dedication that you put on this case. Kudos!!!
	() Thanks

11th March 2016, 16:06	#10
SILVERWOOD Senior - BHPian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: BANG-A-LURE. Posts: 1,197 Thanked: 4,657 Times	Re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore 4 out of 5 English dailies covered our story today. Waseem Memon Attached Thumbnails
	(53) Thanks

11th March 2016, 18:51	#11
johannskaria BHPian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: MH 12 / KL 08 Posts: 795 Thanked: 2,105 Times	Re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore Attached herewith PDF of the Judgement for reference! Interesting observations by the court. (Starts from page 10) Case Number: WP 28063/2015 Judge(s): ANAND BYRAREDDY Date of Judgment: 10-Mar-2016 Petitioner: SRI JAGADEV BIRADAR Respondent: STATE OF KARNATAKA Bench: Bengaluru WP28063-15-10-03-2016.pdf
	(19) Thanks

11th March 2016, 20:35	#13
Altocumulus Senior - BHPian Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: NCR/ KOL/ BLR Posts: 1,142 Thanked: 2,055 Times View My Garage	Re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore This couldn't have come in a better time. I am moving to Bangalore next month and was contemplating selling my 1 yr 3 months old Ritz because I would be required to pay 75k+ as LTT specially after paying nearly 1.5L as deposit for a house. Now I can take the car and pay the tax after 6 months saving Thank you Waseem
	(1) Thanks

11th March 2016, 20:55	#14
fiestarry BANNED Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Mumbai Posts: 341 Thanked: 608 Times	Re: Case: Out of State Cars vs RTO Bangalore My inference from the judgement is that ' the MV Act merely requires the owner of a vehicle exceeding 12 months stay in another state, to apply and obtain regn mark in the new state. No need to pay road tax again' Am I far off the mark ? Legalese is a foreign language for many of us !
	() Thanks