High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 02 MAD CK 0355

M. Duraimurugan vs The Commissioner Panchayat Union, The Transport Commissioner and The Regional Transport Authority

Madras High Court · Decided on 24 February 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
T. Raja, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 26276 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

74 paragraphs · 1,195 words

T. Raja, J.—The present writ petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order

passed by third Respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal in proceedings No. 91641/E4/2010 dated 01.11.2010 and to quash

the same and for a consequential direction to the third Respondent to accept the tax @ 6% for two years on the auction value of the vehicle

bearing Reg. No. TN 09Q 1120 at Rs. 38,500/- .

2.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has participated in a public auction held by the first Respondent-The

Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Puduchatiram, Namakkal District on 19.8.2010 for purchasing the old jeep bearing Regn. No. TN09Q 1120.

Having become the successful bidder, the Petitioner was declared as the ""successful bidder"" for a sum of Rs. 38,500/- along with 12.5% VAT and

4% additional tax. The Petitioner has also paid the total sum of Rs. 44,850/- to the first Respondent. After that the Petitioner as per the direction

issued by the first Respondent had paid the insurance amount for the above said vehicle. After paying the insurance, he approached the second

Respondent, Transport Commissioner, Chepauk for transfer of permit and mutation of name in all the records. Again the second Respondent

directed the Petitioner to pay life tax which comes to Rs. 20,000/- . The grievance of the Petitioner at this juncture is that the vehicle was 12 years

old at the time of his purchase from auction held on 19.8.2010. Since the Government has not paid the life tax to the vehicle, the second

Respondent insisted the Petitioner by letter dated 26.10.2010 to pay life tax at the rate of 6% as per the purchase amount during 1998. But the

Petitioner is prepared to pay life tax at the rate of 6% only at the rate of purchase made by him on 19.8.2010. Therefore, the Petitioner came to

this Court by challenging the impugned order issued by the third Respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal demanding payment of life

tax at the rate of 6% at the cost of the vehicle sold in the first sale.

3.

In reply, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette-Extraordinary published on 24.5.2010, Part

IV-Section 2 indicates how much will be the life tax taxable on the vehicle from the purchaser. In the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,

1974, for the Third Schedule, the following Schedule is substituted.

THIRD SCHEDULE.

[See Section 4(1-A)]

PART-I

New motor vehicles

Rate of Tax

At the time of registration (i) Total cost of the vehicle not exceeding

rupees ten lakhs - 10 percent.

(ii)Total cost of vehicle exceeding rupees

ten lakhs - 15 percent

PART-II

Old motor vehicles

At the time of assigning new Registration mark u/s 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988), or old motor vehicles plying and

registered in this State, and if it''s age from the month of such registration is,-

Rate of tax

Cost of the vehicle Not exceeding rupeesCost of the vehicle exceeding ten lakhs

Ten lakhs

1.

Not more than one year 8.75 percent of the cost of vehicle 13.75 percent of the cost of vehicle

2.

More than one year but not more than8.50 percent of the cost of vehicle 13.50 percent of the cost of vehicle

two years

3.

More than two years but not more 8.25 percent of the of vehicle 13.25 percent of the cost of vehicle

than three years

4.

More than three years but not more 8.00 percent of the cost of vehicle 13.00 percent of the cost of the vehicle

than four years

5.

More than four years but not more 7.75 percent of the cost of vehicle 12.75 percent of the cost of the vehicle

than five years

6.

More than five years but not more than7.50 percent of the cost of vehicle 12.50 percent of the cost of the vehicle

six years

7.

More than six years but not more than7.25 percent of the cost of vehicle 12.25 percent of the cost of the vehicle

seven years

8.

More than seven years but not more 7.00 percent of the cost of vehicle 12.00 percent of the cost of the vehicle

than eight years

9.

More than eight years but not more 6.75 percent of the cost of vehicle 11.75 percent of the cost of the vehicle

than nine years

10.

More than nine years but not more 6.50 percent of the cost of vehicle 11.50 percent of the cost of the vehicle

than ten years

11.

More than ten years but not more 6.25 percent of the cost of vehicle 11.25 percent of the cost of the vehicle

than eleven years

12.

More than eleven years 6.00 percent of the cost of vehicle 11.00 percent of the cost of the vehicle

As per III schedule, the rate of tax payable by the purchaser of the vehicle is unambiguously given. For instance, if a vehicle is more than one year

but not more than two years and the cost of the vehicle is not exceeding Rs.10 lakhs, 8.50% of the cost of the vehicle is the life tax. If the cost of

the vehicle is exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, 13.50% of the cost of the vehicle is mentioned as life tax. In the case of the Petitioner, admittedly, the vehicle

is more than 11 years old. Therefore, the vehicle is falling under Part-II, Sl. No. 12 wherein 6% of the cost of the vehicle is the life tax. To make it

clear an explanation is also given under the schedule which reads as under:

Explanation.-For the purpose of this Schedule, ""cost of vehicle"" means the cost of vehicle at the time of purchase, in such manner as may be

prescribed.

Therefore, a mere reading of the III schedule as well as the Explanation given there under shows that the Petitioner is required to pay 6% of the

cost of the vehicle by taking into account the first purchase of the vehicle by the Government and not the second purchase of the vehicle by the

Petitioner.

4.

However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was not supplied with the purchasing bill of the vehicle. Hence, it is

open to the Petitioner to ask for the purchase bill from whom the vehicle was purchased so as to determine the rate of tax. The apprehension is

unless and other wise the Petitioner is issued with the purchase bill he would not be able to calculate the rate of tax. Therefore, it is open to the

Petitioner to approach the Respondents for getting the purchase bill so as to find out the original value of the vehicle purchased by him. The invoice

also should give the total cost of the vehicle. It is for the Respondents either to provide a copy of the original purchase bill or the invoice, so that

the Petitioner will be in a position to find out the original cost of the vehicle purchased.

5.

In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1/ 2010 are also dismissed.