Karnataka High Court
The Principal Secretary To Government vs Mr Ranjith K P on 27 July, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT APPEAL NO.191 OF 2023 (MV)
AND
WRIT APPEAL NO.196 OF 2023 (MV)
IN WA. NO.191 OF 2023
BETWEEN :
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
# 253, 1ST FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY
1ST FLOOR, A-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING
SHANTINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT & SENIOR REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, BENGALURU (SOUTH)
JAYANAGAR SHOOPING COMPLEX
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 011.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHENDRA S.S., AGA)
2
AND:
1. MR. RANJITH K.P.,
S/O SRI. K.K. PEETHAMBRAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT No.004, VISHAL PARK WOOD
KESHAVARAJ LAYOUT
CAMBRIDGE ROAD
HALASURU
BENGALURU - 560 008.
2. THE JOINT SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORT BHAVAN 1
PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
3. NATIONAL INFORMATICS CENTRE
KARNATAKA STATE UNIT
VI AND VII FLOOR, MINI TOWER
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASG FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS. b) ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED:16.12.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP
3
No.683/2022 (MV) C/W WRIT PETITION.NO.2153/2022
(MV) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WA NO.196 OF 2023
BETWEEN :
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE
YESHWANTHPUR
3RD FLOOR, SHOPING COMPLEX
RAILWAY STATION ROAD
YESHWANTHPUR
BENGALURU - 560 022
REP. BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
AND ROAD SAFETY
1ST FLOOR, A-BLOCK
TTMC BUILDING
K.H. ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
3RD FLOOR
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHENDRA S.S., AGA)
4
AND:
1. MRS. SHALINI T.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
D/O M.R. THANGAVELU A.,
R/AT DV 117 IISC QUARTERS
ISRO ROAD
VIJINAPURA CAMPUS
SANJAY NAGAR
OPPOSITE TO ISRO HEAD QUARTERS
BENGALURU - 560 094.
2. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORT BHAVAN -1
PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI - 110 001
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASG FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) CALL
FOR RECORDS B) ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:16.12.2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP
NO.683/2022 (MV) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.2153/2022
(MV) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
THESE APPEALS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (hereinafter referred to as `MORTH'), Government of India, by its Notification bearing No.GSR 594(E) dated 26.08.2021 as per Annexure-D introduced a new registration mark for new motor vehicles called Bharath Series (hereinafter referred to as "BH Series"), process of which would not require assignment of new registration mark, if the owner of the vehicle moves from one State to another. The said facility was made available on voluntary basis to defence personnel, employees of Central Government/State Government, Central/State Government Public Sector undertakings, private sector companies/organisation, which are having their offices in four or more States/Union Territories.
2. In furtherance to the said notification, the appellant No.2- Commissioner of Transport, Road Safety, Bengaluru, had issued a communication bearing No.TC/Regn.-1-PR-412/2021-22 dated 6 20.12.2021, as per Annexure-G to register new non transport vehicles of persons in the first phase, excluding private sector employees, under BH series registration.
3. Writ petitioners/respondent No.1 in both the appeals aggrieved by the aforesaid communication dated 20.12.2021 issued by appellant No.2 excluding registration of new non-transport vehicles of private sector employees under BH series, filed the present writ petitions.
4. Subsequent to filing of the writ petitions, by another communication dated 11.05.2022 (as per Annexure-R-1 to the Statement of objections filed by the appellant No.1 -State) State Government has directed the appellant No.2 -Commissioner to consider registration under BH series only the motor vehicles owned by officer/staff of All India Service, Central Government employees and bank officers, leaving out private sector employees.
7
5. Learned Single Judge by impugned common order dated 16.12.2022 allowed the writ petitions quashing the communication dated 20.12.2021 issued by the appellant No.2 and further directed appellant No.2 to register the motor vehicles of the writ petitioners forthwith as per the notification dated 26.08.2021 under BH series and further directed the State Government to implement the Central Motor Vehicles (20th Amendment) Rules 2021. Being aggrieved by the said order appellants-State authorities are before this Court in these writ appeals.
6. Sri.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeals submitted that:
(i) State Government is empowered to collect taxes from the citizens owning vehicles and that notification dated 26.8.2021 issued by MORTH is coming in the way of appellants exercising their powers in collecting taxes as and when fell due;8
(ii) That the levy and collection of taxes of motor vehicles is exclusively a State subject as per Entry 57 List II (State List) of VII Schedule of Constitution of India and that the said taxes are one of the modes of revenue generation for the State and any short fall would effect financial status of the State;
(iii) That MORTH has only issued a notification and has not enacted any law in this regard to implement the same in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act, the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxes Act and Rules. As such the State is well within the jurisdiction to exclude private employees from BH series registration;
(iv) That the exclusion of private employees from registering motor vehicles under BH series is based on comparative collection of taxes payable by the citizens for vehicles under BH series and if all vehicles owned by employees are registered under BH 9 series there is every likelihood of decrease in collection of taxes;
(v) That private employees may not be permanent employees of the company where they are working and they can be employees on contract basis or can be hired for specific project or can be employees whose services are utilized temporarily to ensure the business continuity;
(vi) That infrastructure is yet to be developed to collect taxes on BH series with respect to private employees who shift from one State to another and that all the States have not implemented BH series and if in the event of private employees shifting from one State to another where there is no BH series registration they would be forced to face unnecessary problems.
7. On the above grounds, learned Additional Government Advocate seeks allowing of the appeals by setting aside the impugned order.
10
8. Sri.J.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.191/2023 and Smt.Anisha, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.196/2023 justifying the impugned order submit;
(i) That the communication dated 20.12.2021 issued by the appellant No.2 excluding registration of BH series in respect of motor vehicles belonging to private employees who were working in a company having its location in more than four states, is arbitrary and discriminatory.
(ii) That the appellant No.2 has no authority in law to refuse to implement the Notification dated 26.08.2021 issued by the Central Government through MORTH.
(iii) Similarly notification dated 30.11.2021 issued by the Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Transport Department is also without authority of law. 11
(iv) That the appellant No.2 has no power under Section 65 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `MV Act') to make its own rules inconsistent with the rules made by the Central Government under Section 64 of the MV Act.
(v) That the very object of introduction of the scheme is to create a seamless process of transfer of vehicles from one State to another State facilitating the private sector employees with transferable job as such the impugned communication dated 20.12.2021 runs contrary to the said object.
(vi) That the appellant No.2 has already registered motor vehicle of one private employee namely one Mr.Vijay Kumar Jadhav who is working in M/s.OLA company and therefore cannot deny to extend similar benefit to the petitioners.
(vii) That in terms of Article 256 of the Constitution of India State is under an obligation to 12 follow and implement the instructions/communications issued by the Central Government.
(viii) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.191/2023 relied upon Judgments in the case of
(i) MPAIT Permit Owners Association and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2004 SCC 981,
(ii) Gujarat University and anr Vs Sri.Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar reported in AIR 1963 SC 703,
(iii) State of Tamil Nadu Vs Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and anr reported in (1995) 4 SCC 104,
(iv) Vijay Kumar and others Vs State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1990 SC 2072. Hence, seek for dismissal of the writ appeals.
9. Heard. Perused the records.
10. Notification dated 26.08.2021 reads that the Government of India, MORTH in furtherance to host of its citizen centric steps to facilitate mobility particularly in respect of relocation of station of Government and private sector employees and in order to facilitate 13 seamless transfer of vehicles introduced a new registration mark for new vehicle i.e., "Bharath series (BH series)". It further provides that a vehicle bearing this registration mark shall not require assignment of a new registration mark when the owner of the said vehicle shifts from one State to another. This vehicle registration facility is made available on voluntary basis to defence personnel, employees of Central Government/State Government/Central/State Public Sector undertakings and Private Sector Companies/organizations which have their offices in four or more states/Union territories. The notification further provides motor vehicle tax will be levied for two years or in multiples of two. That after completion of fourteenth year, the motor vehicle tax shall be levied annually which shall be half of the amount which was charged earlier for that vehicle.
11. In furtherance to the above, the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred by clause (a), clause (d), clause (p) of Section 64 of the 14 M.V. Act published Rules called "the Central Motor Vehicles (20th Amendment) Rules 2021" amending the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 effective from 15th Day of September, 2021 as under:
(i) by inserting the following clauses after clause (c) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 47 namely:
"(ca) working certificate in Form 60, in case the applicant working in private sector applies for BH-Series registration mark;
(cb) Official Identity Card, in case the applicant working in Government office applies for BH-
series registration mark;".
(ii) by inserting a proviso after sub-rule (1) of Rule 48 as under:
"Provided that in case of application for registration of vehicles under BH Series, opted voluntarily by vehicle owner, the registration mark shall be generated randomly through the portal after verification of working certificate in Form No.60 or official identity card as the case may be by the registering authority."
(iii) by inserting following sub-rule after sub-rule (7) of Rule 50 namely;
"(8) The registration mark for BH series vehicle generated randomly through the portal 15 shall be in black on white background and shall be exhibited in the following manner namely;
...........
(iv) by inserting the following Rule after Rule 51A namely:
"51 B. Principle for motor vehicle tax.--(1) In case of fully built non-transport vehicles, the motor vehicle tax shall be calculated electronically through the portal on the basis of invoice price excluding Goods and Services Tax (GST).
(2) The Motor Vehicle Tax levied by the States or Union Territories at the time of registration in respect of BH - Series non-transport vehicles shall be the following, namely:--
Sl. Invoice Price Motor vehicle Remarks No. Tax (% of Invoice Price)
1. Below Rs.10 lakh 8% 2% extra charge shall
2. Rs.10-20 lakh 10% be levied for diesel
3. Above Rs.20 lakh 12% vehicles, Electric vehicles shall be charged 2% less tax (3) In case, where the vehicle bears BH -Series registration mark, the motor vehicle tax shall be levied electronically through the portal for two years, or in multiples of two, as the case may be, in the following manner, namely:-16
Motor vehicle Motor Vehicles tax as per Tax for two years - Invoice price * 1.25*2 for the vehicle ________________________ under BH-series 15 registration (Rounded to next integer) Note:- After seven days from the due date of payment of motor vehicle tax, an additional fee of one hundred rupees per day shall be levied in case of delay in payment of road tax.
"Provided that on and after fourteenth year from the date of first registration, the motor vehicle tax (rounded to next integer) shall be levied annually which will be half of the tax as mentioned in Sub-Rule(3)".
(v) By inserting following Sub-Rule after Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 54;
"(3) This rule, shall not apply to a vehicle having BH series registration mark.
Provided that the owner of the vehicle bearing BH series registration mark shall intimate the registering authority of his place of residence in Form 33, within 30 days electronically through the portal, in case the vehicle is being kept in the State other than where the vehicle was earlier registered.
12. Thus, from the aforesaid notification effecting necessary amendments to the Motor Vehicles Rules, 17 what emanates is that a special scheme has been introduced by Central Government through MORTH providing a voluntary option to the owners of the motor vehicles to have their vehicles registered under BH series subject to conditions mentioned. The rule also provides principles for imposition of motor vehicle tax by State and Union Territories, and the period therefor. It also provides mechanism for verification and incidental aspects of the matter before and after the registration of the vehicle.
13. Section 64 of the M.V. Act provides for power of the Central Government to make rules for the purpose of registration of vehicles as contemplated under Section 41 of the M.V.Act. While Section 65 of the M.V. Act provides for power of the State Government to make rules other than those specified under Section 64.
14. Thus, once the rules framed in furtherance to Section 65 of the M.V. Act by the Central 18 Government are made applicable, the State Government has to implement the same in view of the constitutional mandate provided under Article 256 of the Constitution of India which reads as under:
"256. Obligation of the State and the Union - The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and by any existing laws which apply in that State and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such direction to the State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.
15. It is necessary to state at this juncture that appellant No.2 by the impugned communication dated 20.12.2021 in furtherance to implementation of notification dated 26.08.2021 issued by MORTH permitting registration of vehicles in BH series, issued instructions to all Deputy Transport Commissioners and Senior Regional/Assistant Regional Transport Officers of the State to take steps for registration of the 19 vehicles owned only by (1) officers of All India Services, (2)Central Government Employees holding post of inter State transfer (3) Bank officer holding post of inter State. In the said communication the appellant No.2 has excluded registration of motor vehicles belonging to employees of private sector companies/organisations.
16. The justifications that are being offered by the appellants-State authorities for exclusion of the motor vehicles belonging to the employees of Private Sector Companies/organisations are;
(i) That MORTH has issued only a notification and it has not enacted any law warranting its implementation by the State in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act, Rules and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. As such, State is within its jurisdiction to exclude private employees from BH - series registration.
20
(ii) that the implementation of notification would cause loss to the State exchequer as it would effect its power and authority to impose and collect tax on the motor vehicles.
(iii) That the employees are either temporarily engaged or working on part time/contract basis and it would be difficult for the State to keep track of their movement.
17. The above reasoning of the appellant-State authorities cannot be countenanced firstly, as noted above in furtherance to its object of providing seamless process of transfer of vehicles from one State to another State for voluntary registration under BH- series, the Central Government has amended the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the same is a legislation required to be implemented by the State Government. Secondly, the appellant-State authorities having already implemented the notification in respect of categories of non-transport motor vehicles specified 21 thereunder except in respect of non-transport motor vehicles belonging to employees of private Sector, cannot contend to state that it would not implement the notification since it is not a law enacted by MORTH. Once the appellant-State authorities have opted to implement the notification the same has to be given effect in its entirety. Thirdly, amended rule No.51B lays down principle for motor vehicle tax to be imposed by the State and Union Territories and as noted by learned Single Judge at paragraph 19 of the impugned order, the concerned Minister for Road Transport Highways of India has clarified that though the motor vehicles would pay tax for a period of two years or in multiples of it, at 25% higher rate, the same is being remitted to respective State/Union Territories online, and this has not been disputed by the appellant-State authorities. This being the factual position, there is no question of any loss to the State exchequer as rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge. Besides, its only an apprehension of the State 22 in not reaching its target in collecting the tax. A mere apprehension cannot lend credible reason for not implementing the law. Fourthly, the reasoning that private sector employees are appointed on temporary/contract basis and that their continuity in service is not assured, is not acceptable inasmuch as the same logic would also apply even for employees of other sectors who are given benefit of the BH-series registration. That apart, the levy of motor vehicle tax is for two years or in multiples of two and that the amended Motor Vehicles Rules, 2021 has also taken care of a situation where the owner of vehicle bearing BH series is required to intimate the registering authority of his place of residence in Form 33 within 30 days, electronically through the portal in case the vehicle is being kept in the State other than where the vehicle was earlier registered.
18. As noted above one of the main grounds urged by the appellant authorities for non inclusion of motor vehicles belonging to employees of private 23 sector/organisation is that the State will suffer huge loss in terms of motor vehicles tax to be imposed by the State, if they are permitted to register under BH- series. A comparative chart has been furnished by the State to demonstrate the difference/loss of tax amount that would be suffered by the State which is extracted hereunder:
COMPARATIVE TABLE OF TAX RATES FOR BH SERIES AND KMVT ACT 1957 BH SERIES Sl. Invoice Consider Motor Vehicle Tax (% of Invoice Prices ) & Tax amount (in Rs) No Price (For ing each Invoice Petrol Tax Tax for 15 Diesel Tax Tax for Elec Tax Tax for15 vehicle) price amount years amount 15 years tric amount years (Initial for (Initial for vehi (Initial for 2 Years) 2 Years) cle 2 years 1 Below Rs.10 lakh 8% 13,333/- 99,998/- 10% 16 16,666/- 1,24,995/- 6% 10,000/- 7,50,000/-
Rs.10 Lakh 2 Rs.10-20 Rs.20 lakh 10% 33,333/- 2,49,998/- 12% 40 40,000/- 3,00,000/- 8% 26,666/- 1,99,995/-
lakh
3. Above Rs.30 lakh 12% 60,000/- 4,50,000/- 14% 70,000/- 5,25,000/- 10% 50,000/- 3,75,000/-
Rs.20 lakh
KMVT ACT 1957
Sl. Invoice Price (For Tax under KMVT Act 1957 Electric Vehicle
No each vehicle)
Considering Life time Tax for Petrol & Proposed Difference As per State Government
Invoice price Diesel Tax for 15 years /Loss of notification vide SARIE 76
Vehicles (As per BH Series) Tax SAEPA 2016, Dated:31.03.2016
Amount the tax payable for the electric
vehicles are exempted in the
state of Karnataka from dated:
1 Below Rs.10 lakh 14% 1,40,000/- 99,998/- 40,002/- 01.04.2016 on words.
Rs.10
Lakh
2 Rs.10-20 lakh Rs.20 lakh 17% 3,40,000/- 2,49,998/- 90,002/-
3. Above Rs.30 lakh 18% 5,40,000/- 4,50,000/- 90,000/-
Rs.20
lakh
24
Sl. Invoice Tax under KMVT Act 1957 Proposed Difference / Difference/
No Price (For Tax for 15 Loss of Tax Loss of Tax
each Consider Life time Tax for years Amount (For Amount (For
vehicle) ing Petrol & Diesel (As per BH Each Vehicle) 1000 Vehicles)
Invoice Vehicles (Rs.) Series) (Rs.) (Rs.)
price (Rs.)
1. Below Rs.10 lakh 14% 1,40,000/- 99,998/- 40,002/- 4,00,00,000
Rs.10
Lakh
2. Rs.10-20 Rs.20 lakh 17% 3,40,000/- 2,49,998/- 90,002/- 9,00,00,000
lakh
3. Above Rs.30 lakh 18% 5,40,000/- 4,50,000/- 90,000/- 9,00,00,000
Rs.20
lakh
TOTAL 22,00,00,000
Note: Life of Motor Vehicle is taken as 15 years.
If 1000 Motor Vehicles registered in a year in each price category.
19. Relying upon the aforesaid chart it is vehemently contended by learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant authorities that the notification dated 26.08.2021 amending the Motor Vehicles Rules to the extent levying tax is coming in the way of State collecting the tax. It is necessary at this juncture to note that though it is contended that in view of Entry 57 of List II (State list) of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India State has exclusive jurisdiction to impose tax on vehicles and that by amending the Motor Vehicles Rules MORTH has interfered with the power and authority of the State, the said contention in our considered view is misconceived and cannot be countenanced. It is 25 relevant at this juncture to refer Entry No.57 in List II and entry 35 in List III of schedule VII of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:
"Entry 57 List II. 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 35 List III. Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied."
20. The Apex Court in the case of BOLANI ORES LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA reported in (1974) 2 SCC 777 dealing with construction of Entry 57 of List II and Entry 35 of List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India has held as under;
"15......It will thus be seen that while Entry 57 of List II is solely concerned with taxes on vehicles whether mechanically propelled or not, Entry 35 deals with also the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied. Taxes on vehicles connote the liability to pay taxes at the rates at which the taxes are to be levied. On the other hand, the expression 'principles of taxation' denote rules of 26 guidance in the matter of taxation. The ambit and amplitude of these two legislative entries in the respective Lists was dealt with in State of Assam & Others speaking for the. Constitution Bench of this Court observed at p. 614.
"The two entries deal with two different matters though allied ones-one deals with taxes on vehicles and the other with the principles on which such taxes are to be levied. when two entries in the Constitution, whether in the same List or different Lists, deal with two subjects, if possible, an attempt shall be made to harmonize them rather than to bring them into conflict. Taxes on vehicles in their ordinary meaning connote the liability to pay taxes at the rates at which the taxes are to be levied. On the other hand, the expression "principles of taxation" denotes rules of guidance in the matter of taxation. We, therefore, hold that the Amending Acts do not come into conflict with the existing law in respect of any principles of taxation, but only deal with a subject matter which is exclusively within the legislative competence of the State Legislature."
21. A question had arose before learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.28063/2015 27 connected with other writ petitions concerning challenge to the constitutionality of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2014 by which State Government had sought to insert an explanation to Section 3 of the said Act, which reads as under;
"Explanation 2.- In respect of motor vehicles registered outside the State of Karnataka and which are in the State for a period exceeding thirty days, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988), and in any order or direction contained in any judgment or order of any Court, tax shall be levied as specified in Parts A1, A2, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8 as the case may be."
22. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BOLANI ORES LIMITED (supra) learned Single Judge has held that registration of motor vehicle is entirely governed by Chapter IV of the MV Act. No motor vehicle can be brought on road without registration. A tax shall be levied on all motor 28 vehicles suitable for use on the roads by virtue of exclusive power conferred on the State Government. Therefore, the moment a vehicle is registered under the MV Act, the liability to pay tax arises. The principle even in the present case, for taxation by the State Government, is the requirement for registration under the Central Act.
23. Thus, even in the instant case, in view of the notification issued by the MORTH providing for registration of motor vehicles under BH series and framing /amending corresponding rules under Central Motor Vehicles Act (20th Amendment) Rules, 2021 which also provide for principle for motor vehicle tax, as noted above, it is not available for the State Government to contend that it would not implement the notification. Such a stand is not justified or supported by any provisions of law.
29
For the aforesaid reasons and analysis we are of the considered view that appellants have not made out any grounds for interference with the impugned order, accordingly, appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SBN/RU