M/S Tulsi vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Tulsi, a sole proprietor dealing in two-wheelers, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent-State to issue certificates of registration (Form 23-A) for vehicles purchased by it. These vehicles, conforming to Bharat Stage-IV (BS-IV) emission standards, were purchased on or before March 31, 2020, and invoices, GST payments (Rs. 8,87,088/-), insurance, and registration fees (Rs. 4,11,995/-) were paid. Online registration numbers were also issued before March 31, 2020. The issue revolves around the registration of these vehicles in light of Supreme Court orders concerning BS-IV compliant vehicles and lockdown period sales. The respondent-Union of India argued that the Supreme Court's order dated August 13, 2020, disallowing registration of vehicles sold inter se dealers during the lockdown period, was not diluted.

Held

The Court held that the controversy regarding the registration of vehicles, including those self-purchased by dealers on or before March 31, 2020, and sold/uploaded on the E-Vahan Portal with temporary/permanent registration granted before the cut-off date of March 31, 2020, has been put to an end by the Supreme Court's order dated November 30, 2021, passed in IA No. 138633 of 2021, clarifying the order dated November 24, 2020. The Court acknowledged the respondents' suspicion regarding the genuineness of the petitioner's sales/transactions in its own name. To address this and ensure the vehicles were indeed purchased for the petitioner's own use (for its employees), the Court directed the petitioner not to sell the vehicles for a period of one year. This restraint on further transfer would serve as a safeguard to confirm the bona fide purchase for the benefit of employees/staff. Subject to these observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a certificate of registration in Form 23-A for BS-IV compliant vehicles purchased on or before March 31, 2020, despite the Supreme Court's orders regarding the sale and registration of vehicles during the lockdown period and the prohibition of non-BS-IV vehicles? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the vehicles were purchased on or before March 31, 2020, conforming to BS-IV standards, and all requisite payments and online registrations were completed before the cut-off date. They relied on Supreme Court orders, including the clarification on November 30, 2021, which allowed registration of vehicles sold between March 27, 2020, and March 31, 2020, provided transactions were uploaded on the E-Vahan Portal and temporary/permanent registration was granted before March 31, 2020. They also cited Rule 48 of the Central Vehicles Rules, 1989, regarding the issuance of registration certificates within 30 days. They further pointed to a similar case where the respondent-State had issued registration certificates. Respondent's arguments: The respondent-Union of India argued that the rigour of the Supreme Court's order dated August 13, 2020, disallowing registration of vehicles sold 'inter se dealers' during the lockdown period, was never diluted. They emphasized that this order would resolve the present controversy and that the phrase 'inter se dealers' specifically referred to transactions between two or more dealers, excluding self-purchases by dealers.