Back
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, ARIF S. DOCTOR
'K' Savakash Auto Rickshaw Sangha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ.
Heard learned counsel representing the respective parties.
Background Facts:
2. These two Petitions since raise common issues of law and facts, the same are being decided by the common judgment which follows:
3. By invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to the provisions contained in Rule 32 and Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "1989 Rules") to the extent these Rules provide for levy of additional fee in respect of renewal of driving license for which application is made after the grace period as also levy of additional fee for renewal of certificate of registration in respect of motor cycles and certain other classes of non-transport vehicles. Challenge is also made to charge of additional fee in case of delay in submission of "No Objection Certificate" for transfer of ownership of motorcycle and other vehicles and also to levy on delay in submitting "No Objection Certificate" for change of residence.
4. Relevant portions of Rule 32 and Rule 81 of the 1989 Rules which have been impeached in these petitions as amended up to date, are as unde
The Central Government is empowered under Section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act to levy additional fees for delayed applications related to driving licenses and vehicle registrations, which are not p....
The imposition of an additional fee for delay in renewing fitness certificates is punitive and unauthorized under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
License fees can be regulatory rather than tied directly to specific services, requiring reasonable correlation with total expenses incurred.
Municipal Boards must justify licence fees based on actual services rendered; excessive fees may be deemed an illegal tax.
Excise Authorities lack the power to levy interest on accumulated license fees under Section 49 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act; interest is chargeable only from the date a fee becomes due.
The court ruled that imposing both Late Fees and General Penalties for GST return delays is improper; Late Fee suffices under applicable rules, reflecting legislative intent for compliance, not punit....
Rule 3A of the Jharkhand Highways Fee Rules requires notifications for Composition User Fee levy; its absence invalidates the fee under the Indian Toll Act, emphasizing requirements for legal taxatio....
The court established that the imposition of delay fees by circular without statutory authority contradicts the principles of law, rendering such fees arbitrary and illegal.
The notification issued by the State Government u/s 78 of the Registration Act, prescribing the registration fee on a graduated form on the basis of value of subject matter of the instrument is in ac....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
