[SILVERWOOD]

Today's Deccan Herald.

Waseem

[suresh_gs]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

@Waseem, I've got personal experience there. I moved my car to Karnataka in Nov 2010, and all necessary documentation was submitted to the relevant RTO within a working week along with a DD for the pro-rated LTT. I was told my NOC wasn't really necessary, and was actively dissuaded from re-registering: "Road Tax Challan is enough Saar, why bother with re-registration? It'll just waste your time and money".

When I went to Koramangala RTO in July 2013 to pay the road tax for my TN registered Santro, the official there said it is not mandatory to go for changing the number plate to TN as long as the road tax is paid.
I feel the road tax calculation needs to be looked into. In my case when I purchased the car in Chennai in 2009 , I paid a LTT of Rs 23960. Back in KA, considering 4 year depreciation, I paid LTT of Rs 32407. Now this is ridiculous.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by carZest

........introducing an annual use tax? Simply adopting the entry fee model of Goa?

Agreed. Entry-based, limited-period renewal taxes are the best way to keep everyone in line, citizens and vigilance officials. I did propose something along similar lines in this post.

[binand]

Originally Posted by msdivy

People who buy vehicles in current state would have already paid LTT and is unfair to them if some can buy from other state and drive in current state. This is according to current MV Act.

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Section 47 and its sub-appendices make no direct reference to clubbing paying LTT with requesting re-registration in another state, and it appears to be a 'profitable' interpretation on part of all state governments for obvious reasons.

IANAL etc. (standard disclaimers apply).

If you read section 47 of CMV Act (link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/65895302/), it does not even mention re-registering. All it talks about is "assignment of a new registration mark". In fact, it is explicit in that when you move states, the new RTO has to liaise with the old RTO to "arrange for the transfer of the registration" and not register the vehicle afresh. Section 41 of the act (link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/298258/) makes it clear that "registration" (entering the particulars of a vehicle in a register) and "assignment of registration mark" (for displaying on the vehicle) are two different things altogether. Taken along with the various judgments that unequivocally declare that liability to pay LTT is only at the time of registration, my view is that state governments are completely out of order when they require any kind of tax payment even after the 12-month period.

The only reason I think state governments get away with it is that this view has not been endorsed by the judiciary.

[SILVERWOOD]

The judgement by CJ of HC of Telengana & AP is very interesting. But with a rider if they had struck down the power as ultravirus it would have been different but the Judgement is restricted to that specific case

Coming back to CMV,there can be no double taxation under the same statute and since MV act is a central act and a vehicle can pay it once in a life time.

The only game States have been playing since long is they were successful in linking LTT with registrations.

Waseem

[Samurai]

This refusal by RTO officials to honour the High Court orders, can't you slap them with contempt of court charges?

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by Samurai

This refusal by RTO officials to honour the High Court orders, can't you slap them with contempt of court charges?

Not sure about this. But in Bengaluru, the high court has ordered to clear footpath encroachments, flex banner removals multiple times. We all know what the status is :(

[SILVERWOOD]

Originally Posted by Samurai

This refusal by RTO officials to honour the High Court orders, can't you slap them with contempt of court charges?

You need some proof in writing to move contempt petition against a said RTO official.

Contempt against a department will not bear much fruit as the department heads generally get away by submitting an affidavit that they will adhere to the court orders.

Waseem

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by SILVERWOOD

You need some proof in writing to move contempt petition against a said RTO official.

Contempt against a department will not bear much fruit as the department heads generally get away by submitting an affidavit that they will adhere to the court orders.

Waseem

Does that mean the court order practically means nothing if the RTO just decides not to abide by it? What enforcement options does a citizen have recourse to? It's pretty obvious that the transport commissioner's word is as useless as the court's on the ground.

[darklord]

Originally Posted by SILVERWOOD

You need some proof in writing to move contempt petition against a said RTO official.

One presumes all an RTO has to do is accept tax, say today, on an impounded vehicle accused of plying in KA for less than a year, and he/she could be held in contempt, right?

[SILVERWOOD]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Does that mean the court order practically means nothing if the RTO just decides not to abide by it? What enforcement options does a citizen have recourse to? It's pretty obvious that the transport commissioner's word is as useless as the court's on the ground.

RTO officials are citing frivolous reasons to delay the directives of the court.They do not want to release the cars/docs till the govt goes in for appeal.A citizen can file a contempt petition against the erring officials if he has evidence.

Waseem.

[SILVERWOOD]

The 30 day rule was implemented in Mangalore/Udupi as well apart from Bangalore.

People from Kasargod,Kannur and Goa had to face the wrath of if.

Waseem

[mvadg]

Now what? Call in the Army to enforce the law?


This morning's Hindu newspaper carries this news:

RTO refuses to release out-of-State vehicles


The ongoing tussle between out-of-State vehicle owners and the Transport Department shows no signs of abating anytime soon.
The State has sought legal opinion on the High Court judgment quashing the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment) Act-2014 which made it mandatory for people using their out-of-State vehicles for more than 30 days in the State to pay lifetime tax.
In the meantime, people whose vehicles were seized are still unable to get them released. In fact, the original petitioner in the case was asked on Monday to return without his vehicle documents as the Regional Transport Office (RTO) allegedly told him that the judgment did not mention that the documents had to be returned.
Earlier last week, RTO officials started asking vehicle owners to submit notarised affidavits stating they would pay tax if eligible before vehicles and documents were returned. “We are seeking legal opinion to see if the judgment is applicable with retrospective effect. But all vehicles seized on the day of the judgment are being released,” said Transport Commissioner Rame Gowda.
Anandhu K., the petitioner, said, “My wife’s company ID card and RC book were seized in July 2014. I got a stay order from the High Court stating that the matter would not be precipitated till an order was passed. Inspite of this, the RTO seized my wife’s driving licence and the first check report a second time.”

[suresh_gs]

Folks

Managed to compile the current road tax scenario in the states of KA,TN,AP,KL,PDY and MH.

Surprisingly TN happens to be the second costliest road tax with regard to high end vehicles.

[binand]

Originally Posted by suresh_gs

Managed to compile the current road tax scenario in the states of KA,TN,AP,KL,PDY and MH.

At least in KA, there is a 11% cess on the tax taking the highest bracket to 20% - you don't seem to have considered that.

In MH, for Mumbai and Pune one has to pay Octroi too (4.25-4.75%, I think). Which I hear is the reason many Mumbaikars prefer to register in Navi Mumbai (MH-43).