AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner/complainant purchased a Tata Indigo VX diesel car from respondent No.1 Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 9.11.2011 for a consideration of Rs.498954.52. The unit price of the aforesaid vehicle was Rs.514812.52 and a concession/discount of Rs.15858/- having been given to the petitioner/complainant, the actual price paid by him to the car dealer came to Rs.498954.52. A sum of Rs.20603 was recovered from him as the life time road tax for the aforesaid vehicle. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that in terms of notification dated 3.11.2011 issued by Govt. of Punjab, Department of Transport, the amount of the road tax should have been 2% of the actual price of the vehicle which in this case was Rs.498954.52/- Being aggrieved from the recovery of a higher amount from him towards one time road tax, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, impleading the car dealer as well as Govt. of Punjab, State Transport Commissioner and the District Transport Officer as parties to the complaint. The District Forum vide its order dated 30.8.2012 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
On notice being issued to the respondents Mr. Amardeep Singh, Clerk from District Transport Office, Ludhiana, appeared before this Commission on 25.5.2016 on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, i.e., Govt. of Punjab, Department of Transport, the State Transport Commissioner and the District Transport Officer, Ludhiana. He informed this Commission that the service of a counsel had been denied by the Department in this case. This Commission felt that the aforesaid respondents need to be adequately represented in the matter and, therefore, directed the State Transport Commissioner to ensure adequate representation through a counsel on the next date of hearing. The concerned District Transport Officer was also directed to remain present on the next date of hearing, which was 19.7.2016.
On 19.7.2016 Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate appeared for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. On that date, the matter was adjourned to 9.8.2016. No one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 when this matter was called on 9.8.2016 though later on, a proxy counsel appeared on their behalf. The matter was adjourned for today. Today also, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and only Mr. Amardeep Singh, the official of the Department is present on their behalf.
The only issue which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the road tax is payable on the showroom price of the vehicle or it is payable on the actual price paid by the purchaser for the said vehicle. The difference in the showroom price and the actual price arises on account of the discount which the car dealers are giving on the showroom price of the vehicle. It is an admitted positon that the system of the Transport Department does not accept the request for registration unless, road tax on the showroom price of the vehicle is paid. If the car dealer feeds the actual price paid by the customer in the system of the Transport Department, the system does not accept such a price and the user is advised to give the showroom price of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has placed on record a printout from the system of Punjab Transport Department which shows that if a price other than the showroom price of the vehicle is sought to be given, the system prompts the user to enter the ''actual price of the vehicle without discount etc.'' The transaction is considered void if a lesser price is entered.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that in fact the system will accept if a price higher upto 5% is entered but it does not accept any price lower than the showroom price of the vehicle.
Notification No.3/2/2011-1TR/2278 dated 3.11.2011 issued by the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Transport to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:- " No.3/2/2011-1TR/2278 - In partial modification in Notification No.2/16/2007-1T(2)/10063 dated 22.11.2007 and Notification No.3/2/2011-1T2/1281 dated 28 February, 2011, in th exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 (Punjab Act No.4 of 1924) (amended 2007), and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Government of Punjab is pleased to substitute the Sr. No.1(iii) of above mentioned notification as under:-
Sr. No. Price of Car Rate of Motor Vehicles Tax
1 (iii) (a) Actual price of the four wheeled personalized vehicle upto 5 lac Two per cent of the actual price of the motor Vehicles (excluding taxes if any) in lump sum
2 (iii)(b) Actual price of the four wheeled personalized vehicle exceeding 5 lac and upto Rs.10.00 lac Four per cent of the actual price of the motor Vehicles (excluding taxes if any) in lump sum
3 (iii)(c) Actual price of the four wheeled personalized vehicle exceeding 10 lac upto Rs.20 lac Six per cent of the actual price of the motor Vehicles (excluding taxes if any) in lump sum
4 (iii)(d) Actual price of the four wheeled personalized vehicle exceeding 20 lac Eight per cent of the actual price of the motor Vehicles (excluding taxes if any) in lump sum
This notification will be come into immediate effect." It is crystal clear from the bare perusal of the above extracted notification that the motor vehicle tax is calculated on the actual price of the motor vehicle. The actual price obviously means the price paid by the purchaser to the car dealer and not the showroom price of the vehicle. If the showroom price of the vehicle is say Rs.5 lakhs and the car dealer gives a discount of Rs.25,000/- to the buyer, the actual price paid by the buyer is Rs.4,75,000/- and not Rs.5 lakhs. As per the notification, the motor vehicle tax is 2% of the actual price where such a price does not exceed Rs.5 lakhs. The invoice of the vehicle purchased by the complainant clearly show that the price paid by the complainant/petitioner for the vehicle was Rs.498954.52. Thus, the actual price of the vehicle purchased by him was less than Rs.5 lakhs. Consequently, in terms of the above-referred notification issued by the Govt. of Punjab, the motor vehicle tax should have been 2% of Rs.498954.52, which comes to Rs.9979.09/-. The amount charged from the complainant/petitioner was Rs.20603/- as is evident from the receipt available on page 92 of the paper-book. Thus, the petitioner/complainant was made to pay Rs.10623.91 more than what could have legally been taken from him. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are liable to refund the aforesaid amount to the petitioner/complainant. If the Govt. of Punjab wants to levy the motor vehicle tax on showroom price instead of actual price paid by the consumers, the remedy lies in amending the notification suitably so as to levy the aforesaid tax on the showroom price of the vehicle as against the present notification of levying the same on the actual price of the vehicle.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are set aside the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to refund a sum of Rs.10623.91 to the petitioner/complainant within four weeks from today failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till the actual date of payment.