Allowed

Mrs. Poonam Kochhar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Apr 2024WP/6446/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by the widow of a deceased vehicle owner challenging the blacklisting of her vehicle due to alleged non-payment of lifetime road tax. The court held that tax is payable on the invoice amount including trade discount, not ex-showroom price, and quashed the notice.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; notice dated 02.01.2023 quashed; liberty granted to transfer ownership; respondent directed to pass order within two weeks.

Mrs. Poonam Kochhar Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13627 WP No. 6446 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6446 OF 2023 (MV)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

MRS. POONAM KOCHHAR, W/O LATE SANJAY KOCHHAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O NO.337A, 4^TH A CROSS, 4^TH A MAIN ROAD, OMBR LAYOUT, MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 043.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶10

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU CITY.

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

HAVING OFFICE AT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, 2^ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.KIRAN V RON, AAG A/W SRI.S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ACTIONS OF THE R-2 IN BLACKLISTING THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA 02 MP 4319 ON ACCOUNT OF AN AUDIT OBJECTION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TAX TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,83,849 (ANNX-A) ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE NOTICE DATED 02.01.2023 AND ETC.,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:13627 WP No. 6446 of 2023

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner asserts that her late husband, Mr. Sanjay Kocchar, had purchased an Audi Q5 45 TFSI BSIV for an invoice amount of Rs. 50,77,834/-, which included a trade discount of Rs. 9,18,166/-. During his lifetime, the petitioner’s husband paid Rs. 10,17,091/- towards lifetime road tax. Unfortunately, he passed away on 29.04.2019. Following his demise, the petitioner claims to have submitted an application seeking the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in her name. However, Respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 02.01.2023, stating that the vehicle had been blacklisted due to non-payment of road tax amounting to Rs. 1,83,849/-.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per Schedule/Part-A5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1957, the petitioner's husband was liable to pay lifetime road tax based on the invoice issued by the dealer, not the ex-showroom price. Therefore, the demand for payment of the deficit road tax is without legal authority.

¶21

Sri Kiran V. Ron, learned AAG, contends that the actual ex-showroom cost of the vehicle was Rs. 59,96,000/-, thereby obligating the petitioner to pay lifetime road tax on this amount. He further argues that the chassis number in the credit note at Annexure-C1 differs from the chassis number indicated in the registration certificate of the vehicle. Consequently, the present

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:13627 WP No. 6446 of 2023

¶24

petition, filed without responding to the show cause notice, is not maintainable.

¶25

The submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties have been considered.

¶26

Annexure-C/Tax Invoice issued by the dealer indicates that the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner's husband for Rs. 50,77,834/-, inclusive of a trade discount of Rs. 9,18,166/-. The credit note at Annexure-C1 confirms the discount of Rs. 9,18,166/-. The petitioner's husband paid lifetime road tax based on the invoice amount. The State contends that lifetime road tax should be paid on the ex-showroom price. According to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, the cost of the vehicle, in relation to a motor vehicle, means the cost as per the purchase invoice issued by either the manufacturer or the dealer, including excise duty, sales tax, surcharge or cess, entry tax, etc., as payable in Karnataka.

¶27

A reading of the said provision clearly indicates that lifetime road tax is payable based on the purchase invoice issued by the dealer or manufacturer. In this case, the purchase invoice issued by the dealer indicated that the vehicle's cost was Rs. 50,77,834/-, inclusive of a trade discount of Rs. 9,18,166/-. Therefore, the State's contention that the petitioner's husband should pay the deficit lifetime road tax lacks substance.

¶28

The credit note at Annexure-C1 indicates a discrepancy in the chassis number between the subject vehicle and

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:13627 WP No. 6446 of 2023

¶31

the one mentioned in the purchase invoice and registration certificate. However, no material evidence substantiates that the chassis numbers in the purchase invoice and registration certificate are different. Additionally, the petitioner has not provided the application submitted for the transfer of ownership in the registration certificate for the subject vehicle. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶34

ii. The notice dated 02.01.2023 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

¶35

iii. The petitioner is granted liberty to submit an application in the prescribed form along with the requisite fees and documents to respondent No.2 to transfer the name/ownership in respect of the subject vehicle.

¶36

iv. If such an application is submitted, respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of application to be submitted by the petitioner.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

RKA

Mrs. Poonam Kochhar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Poonam Kochhar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Darshan a v Vs State of Karnataka Health and Family Welfare Department

Sri.v.N.Raju Vs Smt.Mini Krishna Kumar

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Benson Benny Vs Union of India

M/S K M Mohammed Mansoor Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Lenny Menezes Vs the State of Karnataka