Point of Law:
State Government may levy and collect the tax on motor vehicles, or any class thereof at different rates in those areas, so however that by increase or decrease of the rate of tax annually in those areas, within a period of three years, a uniform rate of tax is levied throughout the State.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following relief’s :

“13. (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondent no.3 to grant the applications of transfer and termination of hire purchase agreement.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents not to recover any tax with penalty or interest from the petitioner pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax for the period, the vehicle is in possession of the financier;

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant costs for preferring this petition;

(E) to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;”

2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be summarized as under :

2.1. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.4 herein availed off loan facility from the respondent No.5-Bank for the purpose of purchasing a motor vehicle. It is not in dispute that a hire purchase agreement was executed between the respondent No.4 and the HDFC Bank Ltd. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.4 purchased the Motor vehicle bearing Registration No.GJ-5-CJ-1116. It appears that the respondent No.4 could not repay installments, so by communication dated 27.04.2009, surrendered vehicle to respondent No.5-Bank. Later, the said vehicle was put to auction. The brother of writ-applicant respondent No.6 herein purchased the vehicle in the auction conducted by the Bank. The writ-applicant with the consent of his brother respondent No.6 applied with the RTO authorities to transfer the vehicle in his name. At that point of time, two issues were raised by the RTO authorities, first an objection was raised with regard to the manner in which the writ-applicant preferred an application for transferring the vehicle in his name and secondly with regard to the liability of the writ-applicant to once again pay the life time tax. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.4 had already paid the life time tax at the relevant point of time in accordance with the rules. As the RTO authorities declined to transfer the vehicle in the name of the writ-applicant and also insisted for payment of the life time tax once again, the writ applicant was left with no other option, but to come before this Court with the present writ petition.

2.2. We take notice of the few orders passed by the different benches in this matter. We first refer to the order dated 25th November 2011 :

“Petitioner claims to have purchased a motor vehicle bearing registration GJ5-CJ-1116 from respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 is a financier who had financed the purchase of the vehicle by respondent no.4. Stand of the respondent no.5 is that respondent no.4 since was unable to pay the entire loan amount, he had voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to respondent no.5 upon which the same was sold to respondent no.6 who happens to be brother of the petitioner. At this stage, we may briefly note that as per respondent no.4, however, the vehicle was not surrendered to respondent no.5- financier but was forcibly repossessed. With this controversy between respondents no.4 and 5, we are, however, not concerned in this petition since it appears that respondent no.4 has not taken any legal steps to raise such an issue. Be that as it may, case of the petitioner is that respondent no.6 is brother who agreed to have the vehicle registered in the name of the petitioner. Respondent no.6 who is represented by advocate also supports this case.

On behalf of the RTO authority, it is, however, there is an objection to transferring the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. Their stand, as is emerging from the affidavit-in-reply, is that respondent no.5-financier shou