Last Updated on November 11, 2021 at 10:30 am
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday has asked the government not to demand 9 percent token tax from the owners of the vehicles who have already paid the tax at the time of registration outside the Union Territory.
A division bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Sanjay Dhar took a serious note on the matter and directed the authorities.
The Division Bench directed that to file a response within three weeks. The directions were passed after the petitioner counsel submitted before the court that the respondents are demanding nine percent token tax from the owners of motor vehicles who have applied for a new registration mark in J&K.
In the plea, the petitioner through senior advocate Faisal Qadri contends that circular issued by the Commissioner/Secretary Transport Department was against the “purport” of the High Court’s April 29 judgment by virtue of which RTO Kashmir’s order regarding re-registration of the vehicles from outside J&K was quashed.
The respondents were directed to have the compliance of Section 47 of the Act, read with Rule 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles undertaken for assignment of new registration mark of the vehicles. The DB observed that notwithstanding above directions, we leave it open for the respondents to screen, scrutinize, verify, validity/genuineness of documents of any vehicles entering in J&K from outside, having outside registration. The effect of the directions is that the respondents were directed to have compliance of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles undertaken for assignment of new registration marks of the vehicles which were already registered outside the UT.
Petitioner’s counsel stated that the authorities are demanding 9 per cent token tax from the owners of the vehicles who have applied for assignment of new registration mark in the J&K even though their vehicles are duly registered outside J&K and have already paid life time tax on them. This action, the petitioner’s counsel said was against the judgment of the court.
“The respondents in terms of order dated 12.07.2021 were asked to file their response within one month but till date, no response has been filed and the violation to the extent as indicated above is in continuation,” the court said, adding, “In the above background, we have no option but to ask the respondents to adhere to the judgment in letter and spirit and there shall be no demand made for 9% token tax from the owners of the vehicles who have already paid the tax at the time of registration from outside the UT.”
