IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ MITHAL, UMESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, JJ.
Amar Nath Chaubey – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Tax No. 521 of 2017
Decided On : 02-08-2017
Tax Liability - Motor Vehicles - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 - Section 4/4-A, 2(h), 51, 9(2) - The court discussed the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle, emphasizing the definitions of 'owner' and 'person in possession' under the Acts, and the impact of hire-purchase agreements on the transfer of ownership. The court held that the primary liability to pay tax is upon the registered owner until the hire-purchase agreement or hypothecation comes to an end and proper transfer formalities are completed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a taxi financed by Tata Motor Finance, which was repossessed due to non-payment of instalments. The petitioner disputed the recovery of taxes, claiming that the finance company should be liable as it had possession of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as the registered owner, was liable to pay taxes until the hire-purchase agreement or hypothecation ended and proper transfer formalities were completed.
Issues: Liability to pay taxes in respect of a repossessed vehicle, interpretation of 'owner' and 'person in possession' under the Acts, impact of hire-purchase agreements on tax liability.
Ratio Decidendi: The primary liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle is upon the registered owner until the hire-purchase agreement or hypothecation comes to an end and proper transfer formalities are completed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the taxation officer to consider the petitioner's representation for exemption or reduction of penalty in accordance with the law.
1. Heard Sri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Himanshu Shekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner had purchased a taxi bearing registration no. UP-67T-3558 on 29.4.2012. The said vehicle was purchased by the petitioner on being financed by the Tata Motor Finance. The petitioner got the said vehicle registered in his name. There is no averment in the pleadings that the said vehicle was purchased under a hire purchase agreement or under an agreement of lease or hypothecation, though it was duly financed and appears to be under hypothecation. On account of non-payment of instalments it was repossessed on 17.10.2014 by the finance company.
3. A recovery of Rs. 39,600/- as tax and Rs. 32,076/- as penalty, total Rs. 71,676/- for the period 1.10.2012 to 30.6.2016 has been issued in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said recovery, has preferred this petition contending that as the vehicle was in possession of the finance company during the said period, the liability to pay taxes in respect of the said vehicle is upon it.
4. The pleadings in the petition clearly reveal that the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle and that its possession was allegedly taken over by the finance company on 17.10.2014. Therefore, at least till the aforesaid date, the petitioner is liable to pay taxes in respect of the said vehicle. The recovery is in respect of the period 1.10.2012 to 30.6.2016 and, as such, whole of it cannot be held to be bad as against the petitioner.
5. Now the question arises as to the person liable to pay tax/ additional tax in respect of the said vehicle w.e.f. 17.10.2014, the date on which it was allegedly re-possessed by the Finance Company.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner had ceased to be in possession of the vehicle the liability to pay tax thereof would lie upon the finance company.
7. The issue as to who is in actual possession of the vehicle or that it had been re-possessed by the finance company are matters of fact dependent upon evidence of the parties which is beyond adjudication in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
8. The matters with regard to motor vehicles and payment of taxes thereon are governed by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 and the Rules framed thereunder.
9. Section 4/4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 is the charging section which imposes liability of tax /additional tax in respect of a motor vehicle upon the owner of the vehicle.
10. The owner of the vehicle is defined under Section 2(h) of the aforesaid Act to mean a person whose name is entered in the certificate of registration of the vehicle and in case such vehicle is subject to an agreement of hire purchase or lease or hypothecation the person in possession of the vehicle.
11. Similar is the definition of the “owner” under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
12. For the sake of ready reference, the definition of the owner as appearing in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per Section 2(h) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 are reproduced herein below:-
“2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-
.......................
30. “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, any where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.”
“2. Definitions - In this Act:-
.......................
(h) “Owner” in respect of a motor vehicle means the person whose name is entered in the certificate of registration issued in respect of such vehicle, and where such vehicle is the subject of an agreement of hire-purchase or le
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.