Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 595
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
IRISE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WP 975/2025
MADHAVA RAO NALLURI, GP FOR TRANSPORT
The court ruled that vehicle registration must comply with the jurisdiction of the owner's principal place of business, emphasizing the need for proper tax payment and adherence to local regulations.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 39 and 40 - Writ petition seeking release of unregistered construction equipment vehicle seized for non-registration and non-payment of tax - Petitioner contended that vehicle should be registered in Maharashtra, where the principal place of business is located - Respondents argued for tax payment as per Andhra Pradesh regulations - Court observed that vehicle registration must comply with jurisdictional laws and directed authorities to determine appropriate registration location based on evidence provided. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Taxation and Registration - The court emphasized the necessity of vehicle registration in the jurisdiction of the owner's residence or business, as per Section 40 of the Act, and the implications of non-compliance with tax obligations. (Paras 3-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a limited company, imported a construction vehicle and sought to lease it but faced seizure by authorities for non-registration and tax issues while transporting it to Andhra Pradesh.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to assess the evidence for vehicle registration jurisdiction and mandated the release of the vehicle upon payment of applicable taxes and penalties.
Issues: The main issues included the appropriate jurisdiction for vehicle registration and the validity of the tax demand by the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the vehicle must be registered in the jurisdiction of the owner's principal place of business, and the demand for life tax and penalties must be justified based on the evidence.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner argues for registration (Para 3) |
| 2. respondents argue for tax payment (Para 4) |
| 3. court reviews evidence (Para 5) |
| 4. court assesses registration jurisdiction (Para 6) |
| 5. court directs release of vehicle (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in not releasing the Unregistered Construction Equipment Vehicle (Imported) bearing Chasis No. LXGCPA501RA005810 and Engine No.7524C009881/20240059 by directing to pay life tax @ 7.5% on the invoice including custom duty and GST, by issuing Show Cause Notice No.1011/C1/2024, dated 16.11.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to sections Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondent No.3to release the Unregistered Construction Equipment Vehicle (Imported) bearing Chasis No. LXGCPA501RA005810 and Engine No.7524C009881/20240059 and to pass..”
2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is a limited company doing business of leasing out the construction equipment to third parties. In the process of business the Petitioner company imported the subject Unregistered Construction Equipment Vehicle (Imported) bearing Chasis No. LXGCPA501RA005810 and Engine No.7524C009881/20240059.
(a) The further case of the Petitioner is that after importing the subject vehicle the Petitioner got an opportunity of granting lease of the subject vehicle to the 3rd party who are situated in Andhra Pradesh. Since the terms of lease period was fixed for short time the Petitioner unable to get it registered in compliance of Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act”) in the State of Maharashtra, which is the principal place of business as well as residential place of the Petitioner company.
(b) While transporting the subject vehicle to Andhra Pradesh, the Respondent Authorities seized the vehicle on the ground of violation of Section 39 of the Act i.e., (1) using vehicle without registration and (2) vehicle with non-payment of tax as well as G.O.Ms.No.43 Tr&B(Tr.I) Dept., dated 17.07.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that whatever may be the claim of the Respondents, the subject vehicle should be registered in the State of Maharashtra since the principal place of business as well residence of the Petitioner was situated in Mumbai as contemplated U/s
40 of the Act. Section 40 of the Act reads thus:
“40. Registration, where to be made - Subject to the provisions of section 42, section 43 and section 60, every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by [any registering authority in the State] in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept.”
He further submits that there is a default on the part of the Petitioner to get it registered the vehicle immediately after importing the same and before transporting the same to the State of Andhra Pradesh. If a vehicle plying on the roads of State of Andhra Pradesh, as per the G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 17.07.2015 the Petitioner is liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as tax for one year along with compounding fee of Rs.6,000/- (Rs.5000/- for using vehicle without registration and Rs.1,000/- under the header „Vehicle with Non-Payment of Tax/Without Tax/No Tax/HMV). In compliance of the same the Petitioner already paid Rs.50,000/- except life tax and penalty. Even after the receipt of the same the Respondents are not releasing the vehicle to get it registered to comply the provisions of Sections 39 and 40 of the Act.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Respondents submits that an unregistered vehicle cannot be entered on road, more so other than the State. He further submits that since it was entered into the jurisdiction of the
