THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.25467 of 2011

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in requiring the petitioner to pay life tax along with applicable penalty and compounding fee for the 27 forklifts operated by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the Demand Notice dated 16.08.2011 and consequently direct the respondents not to insist the petitioner to register the forklifts operated by it under the said legislations or to remit any amounts towards life tax and/or penalties and compounding fee under the Telangana Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1851 and requested to set aside the impugned Demand Notice dated 16.08.2011.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport has not disputed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The relevant portion in para Nos.46 and 47 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited’s case (1 supra) is as under:

“ 46. Motor vehicle tax is compensatory in nature. It has a direct nexus with the end use. The rationale for levy of motor vehicle tax is that a person who is using public infrastructure, such as, roads, highways etc. has to pay for such usage. Legislature has consciously used the expression ‘public place’ in Section 3. If a motor vehicle is not used in a ‘public place’ or not kept for use in a ‘public place’ then the person concerned is not deriving benefit from the public infrastructure; therefore, he should not be burdened with the motor vehicle tax for such period.

47. Coming to Rule 12A, we find that there is omission of the expression ‘public place’ in the said rule. Opening words of the said rule are: ‘for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act’. Thus, the purpose of Rule 12A is to give effect to Section 3. It is trite law that a rule cannot traverse beyond the scope and ambit of the parent statute. Rule 12A has to be interpreted in such a way so as to be in sync with Section 3. Question is not of the

motor vehicle being deemed to be kept for use and hence liable to tax. Requirement of law is that the motor vehicle should be used or kept for use in a ‘public place’. When admittedly the motor vehicles of the appellant were confined for use within the RINL premises which is a closed area then question of the vehicles being used or kept for being used in a ‘public place’ does not arise. In the ultimate analysis, the core of the controversy lies in interpretation of Section 3. Rule 12A, as already discussed above, has to be read to give effect to the charging section. Therefore, the words appearing in Rule 12A i.e. ‘a motor vehicle shall be deemed to be kept for use’ has to be read as ‘a motor vehicle deemed to be kept for use in a public place’.

The finding of the above said Judgment squarely apply to the instant case.

6. In view of the same, following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited’s case (1 supra) and for the reasons mentioned therein, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned Demand Notice dated 16.08.2011 pertaining to registration of vehicles and the respondents are directed to refund the amounts paid by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.31356 of 2011 in W.P.No.25467 of 2011 dated 12.09.2011. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

_______________________

JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:20.11.2025.

sj