Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1156 - HC - Indian LawsLevy of Urban Transport and Parking Development Fee from petitioner/dealer - demand of service tax - recovery of parking fee at different rates on the vehicle sold and registered within the municipal limits of Indore - petitioner argued that vide Resolution dated 23.03.2013, the Municipal Corporation has not authorized the petitioner or any dealer to recovery the parking fee from the customers unless such authorization is made, the dealers are not suppose to charge any amount from the customers over and above the price of vehicle. By Resolution dated 22.03.2013, the Municipal Corporation has decided to setup a counter in RTO Office and appoint Officer / employee to recover the parking fee, therefore, now the Corporation cannot compel the petitioner to deposit amount, which was not recovered. Held that:- Vide Resolution dated 22.03.2013, the Municipal Corporation has imposed the parking fee, which is one time payable by the purchasers of the vehicles at the time of purchase of the vehicle / registration of the vehicle. Vide Resolution dated 22.03.2013, if the dealers are supplying the vehicles to sub-dealers, situated out side the city of Indore, then no fee is chargeable. The Municipal Corporation has decided to setup the counter at RTO Office for those vehicles, which are coming to RTO for its registration. The parking fee is also liable to be recovered from the purchasers whose addresses are within the Municipal Corporation. The setting up of counter at RTO Office is an additional arrangement for recovery of such tax for those who brought before the Registering Authority for registration if the dealers escaped to charge the parking fee as it is one time payable fee. If the dealer has recovered the amount then the purchaser is not liable to pay the same at the time of registration, therefore, the learned Commissioner vide order dated 21.03.2017 has rightly directed the petitioner to produce the details about the sale and the documents to establish that the parking fee has not been recovered during the said period, for which petitioner ought not to have any grievance. If the petitioner did not recover or collect then, the material can be produced before the Commissioner for its satisfaction. The petitioner is required to submit the details of the purchasers who purchased the vehicles during the said period, so that the Municipal Corporation can recover the parking fee, as per condition No.3 of Resolution dated 22.03.2013. Petition dismissed.
|