The power to seize a motor vehicle under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is conditional, requiring strict adherence to procedural safeguards, including prior notice and determination of tax liability; arbitrary seizure without such due process constitutes a fundamental abuse of authority.

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a crime in Crime No.117 of 2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 336(3) read with 3(5) of the BNS.

2. Heard Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.A. Belliappa, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.S. Bhagwath, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

3.1. The petitioner purchases a black colour Lamborghini Huracan car bearing Chassis No. ZHWEF4ZF3MLA16940 and Engine No.DGF008769 from Hoysala Automotive Private Limited on 01-09-2025 paying an amount of ₹3,00,68,729/-. Subsequent to the purchase, it is claimed that the procedure stipulated in law was followed and the car is registered with registration number being KA03NX0016. The car was manufactured in the year 2021 and the distributor is said to have informed the petitioner that the car was sold to one M/s Harrsha Infra Cons Private Limited in the year 2022 with temporary registration certificate and with permission to obtain permanent registration in the State of Telangana. It is the averment in the petition, that the purchaser after obtaining temporary certificate of registration did not register the vehicle or did not get a permanent registration to the vehicle. Therefore, it was returned to the original Hoysala Automotives Private Limited who used the car as a demo vehicle and subsequently put it for sale. The vehicle that was manufactured in 2021 and used as a demo vehicle was put up for sale with reduced price. The petitioner then purchases the vehicle on 01-09-2025 and a bill to that effect of delivery of the vehicle dated 29-08-2025 is appended to the petition. The vehicle was registered as a new vehicle and it was a fact that the vehicle did not get its registration earlier though it was manufactured in the year 2021.

3.2. The petitioner on 07-02-2026 was out of station. The 2nd respondent, along with other officers, is said to have forcibly entered the premises of the petitioner, seized the vehicle without any prior notice or investigation. The vehicle is taken by the 2nd respondent by himself and is said to have handed over to Yelahanka New Town Police Station. The petitioner then comes to know that a crime has been registered in zero FIR for offences punishable as afore-quoted. Thereafter, the vehicle is transferred to the jurisdictional police and a crime is registered as Crime No.117 of 2026. The petitioner challenges the said registration of the crime and simultaneously prefers an application under Sections 497 and 503 of the BNSS seeking release of the vehicle before the learned Magistrate. Objections are filed by the Government before the learned Magistrate to the said application. Owing to the objections, the concerned Court rejects the prayer in terms of its order dated 18-02-2026. By then the petitioner has preferred the subject petition.

3.3. This Court owing to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State Public Prosecutor had passed the following order on 12-02-2026:

“Heard the learned counsel Sri Venkatesh S Arbatti appearing for petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor Sri B A Belliappa, appearing for respondents.

2. The petitioner is the owner of a motor vehicle Lamborghini Huracane car. He purchases the said car from the authorized dealer, one Hoysala Automotives on 01-09-2025 by paying certain amount. The amount so paid include