Allowed

Chikkala Meher Ramesh Kumar v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Nov 2019WP/25062/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the demand for additional life tax based on the ex-showroom price of his vehicle. The court allowed the petition, directing registration without extra tax, citing precedents that life tax must be levied on the actual invoice cost paid.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to register the Mercedes Benz CLA 200D BSIV without demanding additional life tax.

Chikkala Meher Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Telangana — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25062 OF 2019

¶3

Dated:15.11.2019

¶4

Between:

¶5

Chikkala Meher Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Krishna Murthy, aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o.443-A26-3-Royal Nival, Road No.86, Near Film Nagar Club, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad .. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶8

This Court made the following:

¶9

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.25062 OF 2019

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Transport.

¶13

Petitioner claims to have purchased Mercedes Benz CLA 200D BSIV for an invoice of Rs.31,44,000/-. At the time of purchase, petitioner claims to have paid life tax of Rs.4,43,295/and he was given temporary registration number as TS 09 CRTR 3250. Subsequently, when petitioner approached the respondents to register his vehicle permanently, he was asked to pay additional amount towards life tax on ex-show room price of the vehicle instead of net invoice price. According to petitioner, life tax is payable on the invoice, but not on the ex-showroom price and therefore petitioner is not required to pay the additional tax demanded.

¶14

In support of the claim that petitioner is not required to pay additional amount demanded by the respondents, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in W.P.No.5286 of 2018, dated 02.05.2018, which was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.No.805 of 2018, dated 29.01.2019.

¶15

Learned Single Judge of this Court held that the State cannot be allowed to levy life tax on the ex-showroom price shown in the price list, when it is not the actual cost of the vehicle and the life tax has to be levied on the actual cost of the vehicle as paid by the purchaser of the vehicle which can be

¶16

¶17

reflected from the invoice. This view of learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶18

Learned Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that the issue is covered by the decision referred to above.

¶19

Following the earlier decision in W.P.No.5286 of 2018 dated 02.05.2018, this Writ Petition is also allowed directing the respondents to register Mercedes Benz CLA 200D BSIV of the petitioner without demanding additional life tax, if the life tax already paid based on the invoice dated 24.10.2019 is as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the vehicle is fulfilling all other parameters for registration. Pending miscellaneous

¶20

petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶21

____________________
P.NAVEEN RAO, J
Date:15.11.2019
KH

Chikkala Meher Ramesh Kumar v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chikkala Meher Ramesh Kumar v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.P. Krishna Vs State of Telangana and 1 others

Tara Grains Private Limited Vs State of Telangana

T Venugopal and 2 Others Vs Prl.Secretary ( Revenue) and 5 Others

Mundra Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

J.Ram Chander Rao and another Vs Sri D.Krishna Bhaskar and another

M/s Rpl Builders and Developers Vs State of Telangana and 2 others