Court directs RTO Kashmir to register non-J&K vehicles without 9% token tax
Srinagar, Aug 23: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on 9 August 2024 (Tuesday) ordered the Regional Transport Office to provide the registration mark for the vehicles with outside UT numbers that have stayed more than a year in the Union Territory without demanding a token tax of 9%.
The Coram of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani was hearing the petition filed by one Ishfaq Ahmad Tramboo against UT of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary, Transport Department, Government of J&K, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu, Transport Commissioner, Government of J&K, Srinagar, Regional Transport Officer, Kashmir, Srinagar.
The petitioner had filed his petition under Article 226 of the constitution, as he was aggrieved of the demand of 9% declared value of his vehicle under registration no. HR 26 CL 6404, made by RTO Kashmir for assigning a new registration mark to his vehicle in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
The petitioner had purchased the vehicle in 2015 and was now intending to register in the UT to ply the said vehicle in the region for more than 12-months. He had approached the office of RTO Kashmir to get the new registration mark assigned.
However, the RTO did not agree until the petitioner didn't deposit 9% of the value of vehicle amounting to Rs 4-lakhs as the office had calculated.
Aggrieved by the demand, the petitioner had filed his petition, relying heavily upon a judgment by a Division Bench of the High Court, that was passed in case titled as “Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and another vs. Government of J&K and Others” passed in WP(C) 669/2021 decided on 29.04.2021, relating precisely to the same controversy as is being raised in the instant petition by the petitioner herein, the court said.
The court further said that a motor vehicle has to be registered once upon the payment of fee prescribed by the Central Government and such registration shall be valid throughout India.
It also said that the vehicle once registered, is not required to be registered again elsewhere in India.
Further, the court said that after the registration of vehicle by the registering authority, such authority has to assign a registration mark to the vehicle and in a situation, where a vehicle is removed to another state or UT after requisite formalities, the registering authority of that State or UT wherein the vehicle is kept for more than 12 months has to assign a registration mark assigned to it by the Central Government and arrange for the transfer of registration of the vehicle from the records of the registering authority where the vehicle is initially/originally registered and further the State
Government has the power to frame rules requiring the owner of a motor vehicle not registered within the State wherein it is brought into or is for the time being in the state, to furnish to the
prescribed authority in the Sate such information with respect to the motor vehicle and its registration as may be prescribed and not pertaining to the registration fee," the court said.
It is also manifest that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 nowhere provides for re-registration
of a vehicle and payment of fee upon such re-registration, the court maintained.
Having regard to the judgment supra of the Division Bench inasmuch as the issues involved in the instant petition, the petition deserves to be allowed, the court ordered.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and by issuance of a writ of mandamus the respondents in general and respondent 3 (which is RTO Kashmir) in particular are commanded to assign registration mark of the UT of J&K to the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner in terms of section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 without demanding 9% token tax, the apex court said.
Let the needful be done by the respondents within four weeks’ time from the date of passing of
this order, the court maintained.
The respondents, however shall be at liberty to take up the matter with regard to the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner with the registering authority of the State of Haryana for refund of token tax paid on the vehicle in question for its payment towards the UT of J&K as has been done in the above
Zahoor Ahmad Bhat’s case, the court said.
