[shantanumishra]

Originally Posted by santosh.s

Does that mean they should start BH registrations soon, or just that the legal battle now goes to next level?

In normal circumstances, KA govt RTO should now allow for BH registrations, but knowing the new govt. and its policies as well as their dire urgent needs for funds, I am suspecting they would now appeal in SC against this HC order.

I strongly wish this ends here and they allow, but have my apprehensions.


Aside of all of this, Waseem - A Great job done and THANK YOU for leading this for all of fellow citizens,

[neerajku]

This is a fantastic news. But why blame KA alone, it is not there in TN, AP, TS, so many other states. in KA we have seen one party which is part of central dispensation negating this good law. What hope can we have a party opposed to the centre.... really rueful state of affairs....

[Bhodrolok]

Maybe if the union government paid the states their dues on time and not look at increasing their revenue through one cess after another (of which the states don't get a share), the states would be more open to implementing this policy. Also, for states like KA with a lot of moving population and pressure on its infra, I can see why the state is reluctant to open this loophole.

[xotiq]

While nothing against BH, there needs to be some parity in how states collect tax for vehicles. Not only will this encourage folks to buy vehicles from the city/state where they are working or resident, this will also go a long way in reducing objections from various states not inclined to go with BH.

KA collects ~19% till 20 lakhs, whereas Haryana collects 10%..!!
No wonder, we see so many HR, DL vehicles in BLR, and as previous post says- quite possible that BLR has >30% moving/migrant population.

[RaghuVis]

Great work Waseem Bhai! Your perseverance and patience is a life lesson for all

[Hayek]

Frankly, the concept of the BH series where the central government sets taxes is ridiculous overreach in violation of India’s federal structure. I think that state governments are well within their rights to challenge this on constitutional grounds.

Of course, what needs to be done is a simple online process for paying differential registration charges when you shift addresses. For example, if I move from a state with 10% OTT to one with 20% OTT after 5 years, I should be asked to pay 6.66% extra OTT to the new state (viz 13.33% for balance 15 years which I owe my new state - the 6.66% that the old state owes me), and the balances between states should be settled between them. That preserves the right of states to set their tax levels and does not inconvenience genuine folks who shift locations - while stopping people who commit criminal fraud by giving false addresses.

With Fastag around, it is very easy to prove if someone has been genuinely travelling between states or not. Hope the KA government argues on this basis and the SC rules sensibly.

[Axe77]

Originally Posted by cosmodan

To other lawyers in the forum: Can this judgement be taken as reference in other states which refuse to implement BH series?

If the matter is being litigated in the HC of another state, this judgment can be cited there. It will have persuasive value but will not be binding on that other HC.

It cannot be presented to an ‘administrative authority’ (such as an RTO) in another state to enforce compliance by them. If they’re ignoring a fairly clear law, they can well ignore the judicial interpretation of that law by the HC of another state.

[abhishek_hch]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Frankly, the concept of the BH series where the central government sets taxes is ridiculous overreach in violation of India’s federal structure. I think that state governments are well within their rights to challenge this on constitutional grounds.

With Fastag around, it is very easy to prove if someone has been genuinely travelling between states or not. Hope the KA government argues on this basis and the SC rules sensibly.

Actually no, it is not a violation of either the federal structure or the constitutional provisions. Transport is in concurrent list and the MV Act provides the central government the exclusive right to decide the framework for taxation within which states have to operate. So central government is well within its rights and not violating anything.

Also, there's no way that KA govt is going to win this one. It's not about taxation, transportation etc etc, the KA govt's circular is discriminatory as it places transferable govt jobs on a higher pedestal than transferable private jobs. It is violative of fundamental right to equality. Also, the circular is pretty juvenile, won't stand in any court of law!

[OffRoadFun]

Waseem
Congratulations and many thanks for your efforts.
It's a pity that it took so long for this victory where government stand was untenable.Yet better late than never. There should be no ground for discrimination against private sector employees and it's kind of scary that bureaucracy and policy makers hold such stale views. Hopefully, they will wake up.

[NomadSK]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Frankly, the concept of the BH series where the central government sets taxes is ridiculous overreach in violation of India’s federal structure. I think that state governments are well within their rights to challenge this on constitutional grounds.

There’s no loss to the states exchequer as per the government notification.

Press release by PIB;

The transport department of Kerala State Government has filed an affidavit in reply to the Writ Petition WP(C) No. 30887 of 2021 (received as part of the Writ Appeal No. 602 of 2022 filed as State of Kerala & others Vs Marysadaan Projects Pvt. Ltd. before the Honorable High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and Writ Appeal No. 604 of 2022 filed as Secretary (Transport) State of Kerala & others Vs Sathyendra Kumar Jha & Anr. before the Honorable High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) stating that if the State implements BH Series registration, it would result in a financial loss to the State exchequer as the owner can pay one time tax of 15 years or of 2 years at his discretion. However, a detailed response has been submitted by MoRTH, to be filed, mentioning that the owner of the motor vehicle shall pay the motor vehicle tax for a period of two years, or in multiples of it, at 25% higher rate.The same is being remitted to respective States/UTs online. Hence, there is no financial loss to the State exchequer. This enables the citizen to avoid the cumbersome process with regard to obtaining the NoC from the present State, assignment of new registration mark in the new State and application for refund of taxes from the previous State on transfer from one State to another State. This facility is available to employees of Central Government, State Government, PSUs, Public Sector Banks, Government autonomous bodies or organisations, and the private sector (who are employed in an organization with offices in four or more different States/UTs).

Hope it settles the dust.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by kurups

With a ruling party differing in view with the centre, i guess the following is going to happen in Karnataka.

Didn't the KA BH fiasco start when the ruling party was the same as the center? So I believe it has nothing to do with who is ruling but how much more/less the state would make.

[kurups]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Didn't the KA BH fiasco start when the ruling party was the same as the center? So I believe it has nothing to do with who is ruling but how much more/less the state would make.

Not really. If you see the states which have absolutely not implemented BH (even for central govt employees) are the states which are in loggerheads with the centre. Kerala , TN are best examples. Karnataka atleast implemented BH for Central Govt employees and all other categories but only kept Private sector employees out.

In Karnataka, most vehicles are being sold in Bangalore & surrounding areas and where private sector employees influx is a very meaty chunk, so despite being in agreement with the Center on the most part of the rule to implement BH, they didn't want to lose the revenue from the Private sector employees and so tried their luck with the blocks.

[Nomad]

Its been a long and expensive fight. Took a lot of perseverance and grit. Had tremendous support from many of you from this group. One more mention - SILVERWOOD had nothing to do with this case. I am surprised to see his post taking the credit for this fight?

Anyway…it is a great feat and hopefully we win!

[careind]

It is not an easy thing to get a pro-rata refund of the lifetime tax paid when people move out of the state, though it is a legal requirement.
I think that leeway would be gone if BH is implemented and that could create loss for the state government vis-a-vis the status quo.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Of course, what needs to be done is a simple online process for paying differential registration charges when you shift addresses. For example, if I move from a state with 10% OTT to one with 20% OTT after 5 years, I should be asked to pay 6.66% extra OTT to the new state (viz 13.33% for balance 15 years which I owe my new state - the 6.66% that the old state owes me), and the balances between states should be settled between them. That preserves the right of states to set their tax levels and does not inconvenience genuine folks who shift locations - while stopping people who commit criminal fraud by giving false addresses. .

Completely disagree with you. The correct approach is that once a vehicle has been registered anywhere in India, it should be allowed to be driven anywhere, for any length of time, without the need of any re-registration or any further payment till the current registration expires. It is one country. A driving license issued in one state is accepted in the rest. So is a marriage certificate or a divorce decree. There is absolutely no need to harass the citizens over this matter. People move around across India. Every state will win and lose a bit here and there. If they are concerned about people registering in another state, they can lower their fees to become more competitive.

In any case, currently, the Motor Vehicle Act allows a person to use their vehicle for 1 full year in another state. The burden of proof has to be on the RTO/ police to show that the vehicle has been there for over 365 consecutive days. The driver doesn’t need to prove it. Our legal system is based on innocent till proven guilty and not on presumed guilty till you prove your innocence.