Venkat Rao Jalagam v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10696 OF 2019 Date:04.06.2019 Between:

Venkat Rao Jalagam, S/o. Narayana Rao Jalagam, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o.3-12-126/1, P.S. Colony, Ramanthapur, Uppal, Medchal, Malkajgiri District, T.S.

.. Petitioner And The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.10696 OF 2019 ORDER:

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

2.

Petitioner claims to have purchased MERCEDES BENZ (MOTOR CAR) form Raam Autobahn India Private Limited, Erramanzil Colony, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, for an invoice of Rs.60,40,364/-. At the time of purchase, petitioner claims to have paid life tax at14% on the invoice price and he was given temporary registration number as TS CFTR 9744.

Subsequently, when petitioner approached the respondents to register his vehicle permanently, he was asked to deposit an additional amount of Rs.94,500/- at 14% 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.

3.

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, dated 02.05.2018, which was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.No.805 of 2018, dated 29.01.2019.

4.

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.

5.

Learned Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that the issue is covered by the decision, referred to above. 6.

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 MERCEDES BENZ (MOTOR CAR), without demanding additional life tax, if the life tax already paid based on the invoice dated 31.03.2019 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 closed.

_____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:04.06.2019 KH