[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by itwasntme

Some more:

https://m.economictimes.com/industry...w/82294913.cms

This is just government employees voting themselves low taxes after having received one of the biggest pay hikes in recent times.

IN series should make it impossible to know a vehicle's state of origin, otherwise it's just perks for those in sinecures, how many state government employees get transferred to another state?

[mtnrajdeep]

Originally Posted by itwasntme

Some more:

https://m.economictimes.com/industry...w/82294913.cms

I don't think this article is clearly explaining the new policy. It says that 12% road tax will be charged every 2 years? Is road tax and motor vehicle tax the same or is it different?
Looks like we need to wait for some more time to get a better idea of the proposal.

[TokyoDrifter]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

This is just government employees voting themselves low taxes after having received one of the biggest pay hikes in recent times.

IN series should make it impossible to know a vehicle's state of origin, otherwise it's just perks for those in sinecures, how many state government employees get transferred to another state?

It also talks about private sector employees. However, the private sector organisation should have offices in 5+ states or UTs. Talk about making it complex and less-useful at the same time.

[itwasntme]

Originally Posted by TokyoDrifter

It also talks about private sector employees. However, the private sector organisation should have offices in 5+ states or UTs. Talk about making it complex and less-useful at the same time.

This is focused less towards State government employees and more to Central Government & PSU employees and defense staff. Will be very beneficial to private sector too in my humble opinion as (most Tier 2 and above) private organizations have multiple offices across India AND transfer their employees freely.

For example, private bank officers above a certain grade are routinely transferred around India every 3 years. My cousin in a the same private sector bank has been in Port Blair, Mumbai, Kolkata & surroundings, Bhubaneshwar & surroundings. He has taken his trusted Swift to every location.

[binand]

Sounds like it is a choice. Either choose a state-specific registration and pay 20% LTT like we currently do and go through the existing process if we have to relocate to another state, or choose the IN registration and don't go through the process but be prepared to pay 12% every 2 years for the flexibility of changing states as often as one desires.

(Note: 20% and 12% are placeholders, rates applicable for my car).

[toroid]

Originally Posted by binand

Sounds like it is a choice. Either choose a state-specific registration and pay 20% LTT like we currently do and go through the existing process if we have to relocate to another state, or choose the IN registration and don't go through the process but be prepared to pay 12% every 2 years for the flexibility of changing states as often as one desires.

It is not 12% every two years. It is 12% * 1.25 * 2 / 15 every two years for cars costing more than 20 lacs.

1.25 (25%) can be considered as

So not only one will have the flexibility of changing states as often as one desires but also save significant amount on road tax.

Originally Posted by BoneCollector

Re-registration rules proposed to be made simpler for passenger vehicles, while re-locating from one state to another.


Attachment 2150066

[SILVERWOOD]

Dear Friends,

As you are aware, MORTH has recently come out with a notification regarding BH series registrations.

While this is a positive development, we feel it is unfair to private sector employees since it mandates that the company should have presence in four or more states/UTs.

Prima Facie, this is in violation of constitutional rights of citizens, especially under Article 14. we are endeavoring that this benefit be extended to all private company employees, so long as their organisation is present in more than one state/UT.

For this, this notification needs judicial intervention. Since the offices of the central govt are in Delhi, and the ambit or writ jurisdiction with a high court is much wider than that of the SC, we are planning to file a PIL in Delhi HC.

we are already in touch with a law firm in Delhi who have vast experience before the HC and they have agreed to take this up.

I will keep you posted on the progress.

Waseem.....

[vharihar]

Originally Posted by SILVERWOOD

Dear Friends,

As you are aware, MORTH has recently come out with a notification regarding BH series registrations.

...

we are endeavoring that this benefit be extended to all private company employees, so long as their organisation is present in more than one state/UT.
...

Pls ask that it be allowed for all kinds of people. No restrictions like *more than one state* etc. It should be allowed even for private sector employees of companies that are present in only one state. This enables future migration, in case they later shift jobs to another state.

[Sahil]

Originally Posted by SILVERWOOD

While this is a positive development, we feel it is unfair to private sector employees since it mandates that the company should have presence in four or more states/UTs.

What sort of proof does the company need to provide to validate this?

I would presume a GST certificate which lists 4 or more states would be the only legit proof but never know what the RTO has decided

[sierrabravo98]

Originally Posted by SILVERWOOD

Dear Friends,

As you are aware, MORTH has recently come out with a notification regarding BH series registrations.

While this is a positive development, we feel it is unfair to private sector employees since it mandates that the company should have presence in four or more states/UTs.

Prima Facie, this is in violation of constitutional rights of citizens, especially under Article 14. we are endeavoring that this benefit be extended to all private company employees, so long as their organisation is present in more than one state/UT.

For this, this notification needs judicial intervention. Since the offices of the central govt are in Delhi, and the ambit or writ jurisdiction with a high court is much wider than that of the SC, we are planning to file a PIL in Delhi HC.

we are already in touch with a law firm in Delhi who have vast experience before the HC and they have agreed to take this up.

I will keep you posted on the progress.

Waseem.....

Kudos to you and wish you all the success in this praiseworthy endeavour you have embarked on. That being said, though I am not a lawyer, I don't think that this rule can be challenged under violation of Article 14 of the constitution. I know that you guys (and the law firm you have contracted) have done your homework but this is what I think. Is there any judicial precedent supporting it?

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by Sahil

What sort of proof does the company need to provide to validate this?

The draft doesn’t say anything about the companies or at least that’s how I interpret. It’s for individuals which seems to a bummer.

Here’s the relevant thread

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/india...ml#post5138230 (New "BH" series registration | For cars getting transferred from one state to another)

[ant_vas]

If i recollect few months back when the "IN" number series was proposed, it was intended for personal vehicles of central and state govt employees, PSBU employees, Defense Personnel and private sector companies / organizations which had presence in 5 or more states and UTs.

Looks like IN series (for India) nomenclature has been dropped in favor of BH (for Bharath) with the same set of rules at least to begin with.

[tilt]

Originally Posted by SILVERWOOD

*SNIP*

While this is a positive development, we feel it is unfair to private sector employees since it mandates that the company should have presence in four or more states/UTs.

Prima Facie, this is in violation of constitutional rights of citizens, especially under Article 14. we are endeavoring that this benefit be extended to all private company employees, so long as their organisation is present in more than one state/UT.

*SNIP*

Originally Posted by vharihar

Pls ask that it be allowed for all kinds of people. No restrictions like *more than one state* etc. It should be allowed even for private sector employees of companies that are present in only one state. This enables future migration, in case they later shift jobs to another state.

So, someone who is no longer working, for whatever reason; or could be the spouse of someone who is transferable but they themselves work in a place that has only one office in one state - those people can go fly a kite?

There are many people who are retired or even remotely working, who spend significant amounts of time in another state.

Cheers

[SILVERWOOD]

We have been quoted today by Bangalore Mirror.

[SILVERWOOD]

Originally Posted by sierrabravo98

Kudos to you and wish you all the success in this praiseworthy endeavour you have embarked on. That being said, though I am not a lawyer, I don't think that this rule can be challenged under violation of Article 14 of the constitution. I know that you guys (and the law firm you have contracted) have done your homework but this is what I think. Is there any judicial precedent supporting it?

Article 14 of the Constitution of India reads as under: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.