Allowed

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

Telangana HC15 Nov 2019WP/25083/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged demand for additional life tax on a Volvo car based on ex Showroom price. Court allowed the petition, directing respondents to register the vehicle without demanding extra tax, following earlier precedents requiring tax on actual invoice amount.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to register vehicle without demanding additional life tax if invoice tax matches provisions.

M/s Rpl Builders and Developers Vs State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.25083 OF 2019

¶3

Date: 15.11.2019

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s.RPL Builders and Developers, Rep., by its Associate, Chandra Mouli Rajuri, S/o.R.Pedda Lingaiah, Aged about 49 yrs, R/o.1-2-234/21, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.25083 OF 2019

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

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

¶13

Petitioner claims to have purchased Volvo Car from M/s.Talwar Cars Pvt., Ltd., Hyderabad, for an invoice of Rs.49,43,500/-. At the time of purchase, petitioner claims to have paid life tax of Rs.6,92,090/- and he was given temporary registration number as TS 09 CR TR 2023. Subsequently, when petitioner approached the respondents to register his vehicle permanently, he was asked to deposit additional amount of Rs.1,46,510/- towards life tax holding that petitioner paid less amount than the tax payable on ex Showroom price of the vehicle. 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, he placed reliance on the decision in W.P.No.5286 of 2018 which was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.No.805 of 2018.

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

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

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 the Volvo Car bearing temporary registration number TS 09 CR TR 2023 without demanding additional life tax, if the life tax already paid based on the invoice dated 22.10.2019 is as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the vehicle is fulfilling all other parameters for registration. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶19

closed.

¶20

___________________
P.NAVEEN RAO, J
15 th November, 2019
Rds

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Chikkala Meher Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Telangana