[skyrider1]

Originally Posted by ssateesh

to ensure it is applicable to only employees who frequently move locations which was the intent

This is not true actually. Even the introductory video on govt website says that it is to make relocation across states easier, by avoiding re-registration in the new state. The video also says, it would reduce the tax burden by having to pay the tax in installments.

Reference: https://parivahan.gov.in/parivahan//...nt/bh-series-0

Please note it never said that BH series is only for people with transferable jobs.
If the intent changed over time, it may be only because of push back from state governments.

[ssateesh]

Originally Posted by skyrider1

This is not true actually. Even the introductory video on govt website says that it is to make relocation across states easier, by avoiding re-registration in the new state. The video also says, it would reduce the tax burden by having to pay the tax in installments.

Reference: https://parivahan.gov.in/parivahan//...nt/bh-series-0

Please note it never said that BH series is only for people with transferable jobs.
If the intent changed over time, it may be only because of push back from state governments.

The form60 prescribed by CMV for BH itself says private or government employees having office in 4 or more states with the intent to support people with transferable jobs. It doesn't allow any other category of people to apply for BH for example business folks who work in more than one place every few months. So the intent was clear to support people with transferable jobs. Hence I was making the statement the guidelines were not robust to cover this intent

[Hayek]

Glad to see the MH government plugging the blatant misuse of BH series registrations.

The next step is for states to crack down on people who register vehicles in their “home states” where they don’t actually live even though their employer does not have an office in that location.

For me, BH registrations usurped one of the few taxes that states are free to impose in the post GST era. And people who misuse this provision impose a dead weight cost on the rest of us. Logically, BH should be permitted only in the state where the employee is currently located, and only if the company certifies he is in a transferable role. Once that happens, there should be no restriction on number of cars etc.

The same should apply for Central Government servants too - unless they can actually be transferred to other states, there is no reason to let them evade taxes through this mechanism.

[ssateesh]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Glad to see the MH government plugging the blatant misuse of BH series registrations.

The next step is for states to crack down on people who register vehicles in their “home states” where they don’t actually live even though their employer does not have an office in that location.

For me, BH registrations usurped one of the few taxes that states are free to impose in the post GST era. And people who misuse this provision impose a dead weight cost on the rest of us. Logically, BH should be permitted only in the state where the employee is currently located, and only if the company certifies he is in a transferable role. Once that happens, there should be no restriction on number of cars etc.

The same should apply for Central Government servants too - unless they can actually be transferred to other states, there is no reason to let them evade taxes through this mechanism.

1) There is no usurp of taxes. The taxes still come to the same state although in installments. This would have been a concern if state governments use the road tax for only buliding and fixing road? Does any state do this religiously?

2) Evasion of taxes is a false accusation. The tax is paid here

[handsofsteel]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Glad to see the MH government plugging the blatant misuse of BH series registrations.

The next step is for states to crack down on people who register vehicles in their “home states” where they don’t actually live even though their employer does not have an office in that locatiion.

For me, BH registrations usurped one of the few taxes that states are free to impose in the post GST era. And people who misuse this provision impose a dead weight cost on the rest of us.
.
.
.
there should be no restriction on number of cars etc.

The same should apply for Central Government servants too - unless they can actually be transferred to other states, there is no reason to let them evade taxes through this mechanism.

I find this utterly misguided on several counts. BH was one of the few rational decisions and a progression towards a uniform all India registration cost/slab/system whatever you want to call it. Making it tougher/impractical is regressive IMHO.

If I’m working away from my home state, why should I not be allowed to register it in the place of my voter’s card/ Aadhar card/place of permanent residence? Thankfully, I do not have to keep changing these everytime I relocate, would be nightmarish (even for a pvt sector employee).

Going by your logic, if I understand correctly, I should be penalised everytime I relocate (whether by choice or by compulsion (loss of job)).

What business does the state have to assess my finances as long as I’m a registered tax payer submitting my pan number? License raj? (i admit you have also spoken against the cap on the number of cars).

Central govt employees are, by definition of their terms of employment, transferable. There is no central govt non-transferable job on paper. How will you distinguish between them?

Calling them out for tax evasion? Seriously?! Kindly check the database of taxpayers. You’ll find that it’s predominantly comprised of the salaried class (govt employees included, who incidentally don’t have the luxury of evading taxes by creatively structuring their compensation package).


How many states refund the registration amount on transfer? Have you ever tried it? I have, twice, once while de registering a car and once while transferring the registration from one state to another and did not even get a response from either of the states. Is that tenable? If I’m at Delhi, I pay a 15 year road tax and get my diesel vehicle impounded after 10 years. Is that right? Agree two wrongs do not make a right but how is this fair?

Calling out out-of-state registered vehicles as dead weight cost is grossly incorrect. Think carefully, isn’t another manifestation of this argument the oft repeated-why should my state’s earnings be distributed to others?

Going by that logic sir, the out of state guys living in your state, contribute to your state’s economy/security in more ways than one. Earning and spending in your state.(including filling up fuel which has a significant amount of state taxes). Still calling them dead weight?

I have been harassed in Blore for daring to drive an out of state vehicle and did not like it one bit. Trust me, evasion of taxes was the last thing on my mind. I had driven down to my parents’ home (and my certified hometown, not place of birth).

Moral of the story - one nation, one system, one tax. You *can’t* create rules for outliers and, in the process, inconvenience the majority. Oh, my bad, they just did.

[Kar_Om]

Hello All,

I am recent joiner on Team BHP forum and following this particular thread for some days now.

Couple of years back, KA state transport department had issued notification on 21.12.2021 particularly excluding private company employees for BH series registration of vehicles in KA. Against this notification, some Team BHP members from KA who worked in private sector company filed petition in KA HC where HC passed order against KA state transport department, ordering them to register petitioner's vehicles under BH series.

I found the attached certified HC order copy in thread " KA HC allows BH series to private employees" comment no #34.

In short, if we read point No: 8 and 16 from the order, it is mentioned that only central government is empowered to make rules for vehicle registration and state governments do not have entitlement to make rules/stipulation for vehicle registration.

My question is, if similar logic can be applied in case of this MH notification, where new rules like submission of additional documents, one BH number plate vehicle per person etc. are mentioned? Is MH state transport department really authorized to form and implement these rules?

[Axe77]

Originally Posted by Hayek

Glad to see the MH government plugging the blatant misuse of BH series registrations.
…
Logically, BH should be permitted only in the state where the employee is currently located, and only if the company certifies he is in a transferable role. Once that happens, there should be no restriction on number of cars etc.
…
The same should apply for Central Government servants too - unless they can actually be transferred to other states, there is no reason to let them evade taxes through this mechanism.

Disagree with the opening premise and the load on other residents. Agree with some limited sub points. To my mind, the MH circular is not plugging any gaps. It is introducing conditions that ought not to exist in the first place.

By my terms of engagement in an organisation that has a presence in 4 cities (states), I am subject to transfer if the organisation deems fit at any point. They may or may not invoke this. We have had senior professionals who’ve indeed had to move - in one case, more than once. Many (in fact most) others have never changed their base locations. But it is not for the RTO to do a probability assessment on this. Why is there a condition of introducing salary slips from multiple offices.

Even the financial capacity condition is irrelevant. What if my wife has a transferable job and I fund the purchase of her car. Why should she not be able to use it seamlessly using the BH facility. Same for multiple vehicles.

These are just arbitrary administrative roadblocks the state has introduced to scuttle the availing of this route. I agree that it should be issued only to people living in a particular state but if KA residents are having to resort to roundabout ways of registering their vehicles because the state is arbitrarily denying them the provision, then I have limited sympathies for this.

I am trying not to get into the more subjective and grey aspects of what the state is delivering against the taxes. In MH, one can open an entire can of worms on road infra, related corruption and the taxes one pays against registration. Please also remember, unlike EVs where there is a straight reduction of the taxes payable, this is not a waiver of taxes. It is being paid periodically throughout the life of the vehicle. It’s just that it’s been phased out in installments over the tenure of the usable life. If I own my car and remain in MH for the next 10 - 15 years, I will have paid the full taxes I’d have ordinarily paid up front - the only difference being its phased out and in fact a hint more than what I might have paid had I paid up front.

[Hayek]

Originally Posted by ssateesh

The taxes still come to the same state although in installments. This would have been a concern if state governments use the road tax for only buliding and fixing road?

2) Evasion of taxes is a false accusation. The tax is paid here

How is the state not losing? If you register your car under BH, the tax is not the same in NPV terms. Or even in total tax payable terms compared to taxes in high tax states where the tax is more than 12% on ex showroom price. And that is before you get into the dispute on pre GST invoice vs ex showroom price.

Any activity that seeks to make false claims to reduce tax outgo is tax evasion.

Originally Posted by handsofsteel

If I’m working away from my home state, why should I not be allowed to register it in the place of my voter’s card/ Aadhar card/place of permanent residence? Thankfully, I do not have to keep changing these everytime I relocate, would be nightmarish (even for a pvt sector employee).

In every country in the world, vehicles have to be registered where they are based. Not in some permanent residence that YOU don’t live in. Usually if you have more than one home, you register a vehicle where it is based. So no one objects to a car owned by you but registered in UP (for example) if it is actually based in UP. But if you live and work and mainly use the car in MH, you need to register the car here.

Originally Posted by Axe77

Disagree with the opening premise and the load on other residents. Agree with some limited sub points. To my mind, the MH circular is not plugging any gaps. It is introducing conditions that ought not to exist in the first place.

By my terms of engagement in an organisation that has a presence in 4 cities (states), I am subject to transfer if the organisation deems fit at any point. They may or may not invoke this. Indeed I have senior professionals who have indeed have had to move - in one case, more than once. Many (in fact most) others have never changed their base locations. But it is not for the RTO to do a probability assessment on this. Why is there a condition of introducing salary slips from multiple offices.

The fundamental question is whether states have the right to taxes motor vehicles or is it a central tax. Even the BH scheme accepts that it is a state tax. But it overrides the right of the state to set its own tax rates which is the problem. And you have people on our forum justifying the making of false statements while registering cars in so called “home states” where they don’t actually live using their employment with an employer which has no offices in that state. I can only speculate how such states accept such a registration.

The one change that could have been made is to make payment of extra registration costs when you move from one state to another offsetable. Viz if you have paid tax in MH for 15 years and move to KA, all you do is pay the incremental amount when you move if there is a higher tax, or claim a refund if there is a lower tax. And states can have a back end net adjustment on taxes they are owed by other states.

[Axe77]

@hayek:

You’re right - it could be argued that this should be a state matter and BH revenue schemes not be foisted on the states. Perhaps in that case States should challenge the validity of the scheme itself to determine who should charge what price. Of course you could argue that the centre could file similar cases against states that are not playing ball and let the highest court decide where the penny drops.

Fact is right now, no one has taken the onus to set the law straight and we are instead dealing with ad hoc administrative rules and circulars. Adding random conditions is still pretty ad hoc.

I take your point (and agree) that cars should be registered where they are based and used (not a fan of CH / JH etc cars being used and based full time in MH). All my vehicles are indeed MH while my BH registered car is legitimately registered last year with MH RTO. It’s one thing for a job to be transferable and another to produce salary slips from different places in order to avail BH. That’s where extreme arbitrariness has crept in.

The reality is changes that could and should exist (like the ones you suggested in the last para above), don’t. So one tries to find whatever respite one can find in the avenues that do exist (used legitimately I mean, not through fraudulent means). When these are practically shut off through overarching requirements, it’s going to understandably upset the end customer / citizen.

The fact is - there are a number of requirements super-imposed which do not allow even legitimate MH residing private employees from availing BH registration. And there’s no “gap” being “plugged” to that end under the circular.

[handsofsteel]

Adding on to my earlier reply. One of the two states that still owes me my balance of taxes (for having changed my regn) is MH.

If this is deemed acceptable by the state, then what’s wrong if a buyer wants to pay the taxes in a piece meal fashion ie pay as you use. If I end up staying here for 15 years, I’m actually paying the entire amount in a staggered manner.

Pvt sector or govt, even if there’s a possibility that I could re locate, I’d rather go in for BH (rather than having to prove which may not always be possible). Under the present scheme, it’s a loss loss for me paying 15 years tax in state A, and again paying an inordinate amount after relocation (without getting anything back from state A). Fact is, in our country, it’s always the honest tax payer who’s at the receiving end or penalised. As @Axe77 said, I’m not even getting into what I’m getting for my road tax.

[Ragavsr]

Originally Posted by Hayek

For me, BH registrations usurped one of the few taxes that states are free to impose in the post GST era.

If the states are starved for revenue and road taxes are the golden cow, they shouldn't have milked it to death.

BH registration law was brought in because the state police and RTO were simply abusing and harassing the law , especially the ones belonging to Maharashtra and southern states. The law was clear that any vehicle can be driven in another state upto 12 months without the need for NOC and registration transfer. Yet cops and RTOs in Chennai used to harass for NOC.

Contrary to that, I have been driving in Gujarat with TN plates for the past 4 months and never been stopped. Also , the states simply refuse to refund taxes paid for years together and also refuse to pay if the car is with the second owner. The states deserve what they got and I am all for bending the rules to get BH registration for as many people possible.

[setuniket]

The answer to your point is in Entry no. 35 List III-concurrent list of the VIIth schedule of the Constitution of India and Judgment of Karnataka High Court. Somehow the babus in MH and KA think they are above the law.

State governments power to regulate and tax vehicles under list II is subject to entry 35 in list III which means any variation to GOI notifications/conditions/rules/directions without prior approval/sanction of GOI is illegal and not enforceable. For BH registration, states are implementing authorities and not policy framers/regulators.

I hope someone sensible would take it to High Court and get these conditions quashed with cost imposed on govt to be recovered from pocket of these babus.

IMO BH should be made universal, states should not be allowed to dictate where my vehicle is registered as long as it is registered and tax of that state is paid. This will ensure that states like KA and MH dont get away with exorbitant tax structures.

FYI these conditions only hurt two wheeler/ car buyers who pay exorbitant sums and lose registration in 10 years(Delhi/NCR) while transport vehicles registered with NL and ML plates belonging to fleet owners have the means to evade taxes.

Originally Posted by Hayek

The same should apply for Central Government servants too - unless they can actually be transferred to other states, there is no reason to let them evade taxes through this mechanism.

With recent number of suits in Supreme Court between GOI and states(WB and Kerala recently), none of opposition ruled states have approached SC with this issue, the reason IMO is that states don’t have a case here. MoRTH notifications have over ridding effect.

The reason for state deploying creative(and illegal) ways to squeeze law abiding citizens.


I am all in for states using lawful and legitimate means to expand their tax base and manage their finances. I do not approve of using underhand and illegal means which are being blatantly deployed by states to thwart implementation of laws. (Article 265 of Constitution)

Originally Posted by Axe77

@hayek:

You’re right - it could be argued that this should be a state matter and BH revenue schemes not be foisted on the states. Perhaps in that case States should challenge the validity of the scheme itself to determine who should charge what price. Of course you could argue that the centre could file similar cases against states that are not playing ball and let the highest court decide where the penny drops..

[three10]

Ridiculous TBH! Admittedly, people running their own business are abusing the system - few bad examples cause pain for everyone.

Can the government think of rolling this out for only salaried employees? The documentation requirements for BH are already in place for this (Form 60 from employer, corporate ID card) etc, so it should not be easy to distinguish people wanting to use this in a genuine way.

Or, think of easing out the transfer process? Currently, you have to make a minimum of 3 personal appearances (getting the NOC, submitting the application in the destination state / city and then approaching the older RTO for a road tax refund), plus an inordinate amount of delay in each step. It gets worser when one of the states involved (like Telangana) is not linked in the national vahan database.

[2nd_gear_7krpm]

Originally Posted by Kar_Om

My question is, if similar logic can be applied in case of this MH notification, where new rules like submission of additional documents, one BH number plate vehicle per person etc. are mentioned? Is MH state transport department really authorized to form and implement these rules?

The above judgement of the Karnataka High Court is not binding on the Maharashtra State transport authorities. Someone in MH would have to separately challenge the new notification which imposes additional conditions so as to be eligible for BH registration before the Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition.

[el lobo 6061]

Originally Posted by setuniket

IMO BH should be made universal, states should not be allowed to dictate where my vehicle is registered as long as it is registered and tax of that state is paid. This will ensure that states like KA and MH dont get away with exorbitant tax structures.

FYI these conditions only hurt two wheeler/ car buyers who pay exorbitant sums and lose registration in 10 years(Delhi/NCR) while transport vehicles registered with NL and ML plates belonging to fleet owners have the means to evade taxes.

+1

BH series gave two benefits:
1. Paying Road Tax Biennial (2 years). Instead of upfront for 15 years
2. Less harassment towards driving car to other state

My beater car is changed every 6 years. So I saw gains by going for BH series. Saves me road tax. Why should I pay for 15 years when I'm only using car for 6 years?

Pay as you use model should be there.

When the Govt at Center is moving towards ease for people; Govt should make BH universal pan India

Or

State also offer this benefit of paying road tax Biennial (2 years).

As for loss of road tax, every road we use in Mumbai we pay hefty toll. NH have their own toll system.