9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued. In the present case it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that vehicle in question was never send to bodybuilder for any bodybuilding work outside. Therefore, the certificate of road worthiness in Form No. 22 only was required - it can be said that the requirement of producing the certificate of road worthiness has been complied with. Under the circumstances in the facts and circumstances of the case the RTO authority is not justified in refusing to register the vehicle in the name of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground. Demand of tax due and payable on the vehicle from the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Once the vehicle was transferred by the financier to another person, in that case considering section 3(1) of the Act, 1958, the liability to pay the tax on such vehicle will arise. Sub-section (1) of section 3 provides that there shall be levied and collected on all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State, a tax at the rates fixed by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette. Therefore, the moment the possession of the vehicle was handed over to the purchaser who took the loan from the financier and was put to use the liability to pay the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate in Form No. 22 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is observed and held that as the petitioner had produced the certificate of road worthiness issued by the manufacturer in Form No. 22A, in the facts and circumstances of the case, such condition is treated to have been complied with - Application allowed in part. - Special Civil Application No. 5788 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2017 - M.R. Shah And B.N. Karia, JJ. For Appellant: Ramkrishna B. Dave, Advocate For Respondents: Government Pleader JUDGMENT M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned orders of the respondent dated 26.07.2010 and 09.03.2012 by which the appropriate RTO authorities refused to register the vehicle in question in the name of the petitioner firstly on the ground that the certificate of road worthiness in Form No. 22 which was required to be produced from the manufacturer has not been produced and also on the ground that the amount of tax due and payable for the earlier period has not been paid by the petitioner. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner that firstly for the period during which the financier had repossessed the vehicle, the said financier being a dealer in terms of section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not required to pay any tax in excess of what was prescribed by the Government under first proviso to section 3 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1958 ). 3.2 It is further submitted that in the present case even sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act, 1958 would come into play. It is submitted that admittedly earlier the vehicle was not registered either in the name of Hasumatiben Rathwa or in the name of M/s. Tata Motors Finance Limited. It is submitted that for the first time the application was submitted by the petitioner for registration which came to be refused by the Authorities by impugned order. It is submitted that therefore considering sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act, 1958, the liability to pay the tax would arise only after the application for registration is refused. 3.3 It is submitted that even otherwise on the ground of non-payment of the dues of tax for the prior period, the registration cannot be refused. Making above submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Monosteels (India) (Supra) also shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 5. Heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser who has purchased the vehicle in question from the financier. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was owned by M/s. Tata Motors Finance Limited Ltd. which was sold to Hasumatiben by giving the finance. The owner who took the finance did not pay the installments/sale consideration to M/s. Tata Motors Finance Limited and therefore, the said vehicle was repossessed. The petitioner purchased the said vehicle from M/s. Tata Motors Finance Limited after the same was repossessed from M/s. Tata Motors Finance Limited. That the petitioner submitted the application to register its name in the record/RTO book which came to be rejected on the aforesaid grounds i.e. on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the certificate of the manufacturer in Form No. 22 as well as the amount of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, a tax at the rates fixed by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette. Therefore, the moment the possession of the vehicle was handed over to the purchaser who took the loan from the financier and was put to use the liability to pay the tax arise. Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be applicable only in a case where the vehicle is kept by a dealer or manufacturer of such vehicles, for the purpose of trade, there shall be levied and collected annually such amount of tax not exceeding ₹ 5000 as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify on those motor vehicles only which are permitted to be used on the roads in the manner prescribed by rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Meaning thereby such a dealer/manufacturer is permitted to use the vehicle for limited purpose of repair but not permitted to use on road. Such an eventuality is not there in the present case. Under the circumstances the contention on behalf of the petitioner that for the period during which the financier has repossessed the vehicle, such financier being a dealer in terms of section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not required to pay an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 43(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the temporary registration made under the said section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month and shall not be renewable. However, considering the proviso where the motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same has been detained in the workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted with a body or due to any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner, the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed by the be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be. In the case before the Division Bench it was found that because of the riots the vehicle was not brought out of the garage/bodybuilder's premises and thereafter when the authority levied the tax for the said period on considering the same as a deemed use, it was held that the authority was not justified. Under the circumstances, on facts the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Similarly, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mono Steels ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
