HC quashes RTO circular on re-registration of non-J&K vehicles

‘Life time tax can’t be levied on registered vehicle’

Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Apr 29: The High Court today quashed the Circular issued by Regional Transport Officer (RTO) Kashmir asking for re-registration of the non-Jammu and Kashmir vehicles and said that life time tax can’t be levied on a registered vehicle.
The Division Bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul while allowing the petitions quashed the circular of RTO Kashmir whereby fresh registration of non-J&K vehicles was sought.
“The impugned circular is quashed to the extent of asking the petitioners to have their vehicles registered for assignment of new registration mark with the respondent-department without their declaration in tune with the mandate of Rule 54 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and without providing any mechanism”, the DB directed
In another direction, the DB directed the authorities to have the compliance of Section 47 of the Act, read with Rule 54 of Central Motor Vehicles undertaken for assignment of new registration mark of the vehicles.
Notwithstanding of these directions Court has left it open for the respondents-department to screen, scrutinize, verify, validity/ genuineness of documents of any vehicle entering in Union Territory of J&K from outside, having outside registration.
It is the documents put on record by the petitioners whole challenged the circular in question and reference to provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there-under, the Court arrived to a just and proper conclusion that the impugned circular issued by RTO Kashmir is unnecessary.
“The circular in question is without authority to the extent of warning the genuine owners of the vehicles having outside registration and making entry in the Union Territory of J&K, for their assignment of new registration mark compulsory is contrary to Rule 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989”, the DB recorded.
Court while quashing the circular in question observed that it not by any stretch of imagination take away the powers of the Central Government or Government of Jammu and Kashmir to deal with the eventuality of screening, scrutinizing, verifying the validity/genuineness of documents of a vehicle, having outside registration and making entry in the Union Territory of J&K for whatever purpose be as a tourist, businessman or employee etc.
Court has also make it clear that mere quashment of the impugned circular does not take away the authority of the respondents from dealing with the cases of those vehicle owners, who have got their vehicles registered outside the Union Territory of JK, but after making entry in the Union Territory of JK and remained for a period exceeding 12 months, requires assignment of new registration mark in tune with the application of Section 47 of MV Act.
Court has also clarified that the Transport Authority has powers to deal with the cases, which fall under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the matters which fall under the application of Section 50 are not the subject in these writ petitions.
Court noticed the scheme of law, which provides for assignment of new registration mark but deem it proper to reiterate that if the vehicle once registered in any State in India, it shall not be required to be registered elsewhere in India, but when the Motor Vehicle registered in one State, has been kept in another State for a period of exceeding 12 months, the owner shall apply to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle is for the assignment of new registration mark, this is as provided under Sections 46 and 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
“Therefore, a life time tax that is levied at the point of registration of a vehicle in terms of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot be levied on a vehicle registered, merely on a presumption that a vehicle registered outside Union Territory of J&K has remained in the UT of J&K for a period of exceeding 12 months”, Court directed.
In two writ petitions challenge was made to circular bearing No. RTO/K/Estt/85-95 dated 27.03.2021, issued by RTO, Kashmir, in terms whereof, the vehicle owners, who have purchased their vehicles from outside Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory bearing outside registration mark, were asked to apply for a new registration mark as per the provisions of Sections 47 and 50 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 54 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 within 15 days from the date of Circular/notification viz 27.03.2021, failing which action as warranted was to be initiated against them.
Faisal Qadri, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court that there is no denial of the authority of the respondents to screen, scrutinize, verify the genuineness of the validity of the documents required for movement of the vehicle in the jurisdiction of the respondents, notwithstanding the registration of the vehicle in other States of India, but under the influence of such decision, the powers are already detailed out in the Act and Rules and the impugned circular is only harassing the genuine owners of the vehicles, which enter the premises of J&K, unnecessarily.
He further argued that the levy of tax on the motor vehicle is not on the entry of the vehicle to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, but the levy of tax on motor vehicles being registration of the vehicle, therefore, the Union Territory of JK was not right in this regard, he drew out attention to part-A5 of the schedule to the Act, wherein registration of a new vehicle is the basis for levy of lifetime tax. Levy of lifetime tax, he added, is on a vehicle which is already registered and on the basis of its age from the month of registration.
“Admittedly there is no challenge to the levy of tax on motor vehicles using public road in the Union Territory of J&K, as notified in terms of SRO 492 of 2019, but may be the scheme of law as projected by senior counsel appearing for the petitioners does not warrant such tax on mere entry of vehicle in the Union Territory of J&K, which is already registered outside Union Territory of J&K”, Court said.