Rajitha Koka vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Rajitha Koka, purchased a Jeep Meridian Limited (Diesel) and sought its registration. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) demanded an additional 2% tax of Rs. 71,380/- under the Seventh Schedule of the Telangana Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963, treating the vehicle as a second vehicle. The petitioner had already paid Rs. 6,42,240/- as tax as per the Sixth Schedule on 30-09-2024. The petitioner contended that the Seventh Schedule was not applicable and the RTA's action was illegal. The petitioner sought a declaration that the Seventh Schedule provisions were not applicable, that the demand for additional tax was illegal, and directed the respondents to register the vehicle without demanding the additional tax.

Held

The Court held that the Seventh Schedule of the Telangana Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963, is not applicable in this case. The Court reiterated its earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 33567 of 2024, which dealt with a similar issue. The Court emphasized that the Act/Schedule specifies tax levy 'at the time of registration of new vehicles.' It clarified that 'registration' refers to the physical presentation of the vehicle before the RTA office for the purpose of registration, not the date of temporary registration generated online by the dealer. The Court also noted that the petitioner had sold their earlier vehicle on 13.11.2024, which further supported the inapplicability of the Seventh Schedule. Regarding the ex-showroom price, the Court considered the GST invoice and the dealer's letter, which indicated a lower ex-showroom price than that verified by the RTO based on a circular. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to register the vehicle without insisting on the additional tax amount, based on the tax already paid as per the Sixth Schedule.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisions of the Seventh Schedule of the Telangana Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963, are applicable to the petitioner's newly purchased Jeep Meridian Limited, treating it as a second vehicle for the purpose of additional tax levy. 2. Whether the date of purchase or the date of physical presentation for registration should be considered the reckoning date for applying the relevant tax schedule. 3. Whether the ex-showroom price of the vehicle, as stated in the GST invoice and dealer's letter, or as verified by the RTO based on a circular, should be the basis for tax calculation. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Seventh Schedule is not applicable and the RTA's demand for additional tax was illegal and arbitrary. They relied on the principle that tax is levied 'at the time of registration of new vehicles' and that temporary registration should not be considered the date of actual registration. They also presented a GST invoice and a dealer's letter to establish the ex-showroom price. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that 2% additional tax was leviable as the petitioner possessed a second vehicle. They relied on the RTO's verification of the ex-showroom price as per a Transport Commissioner's circular.