TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the purchase invoice, certainly they are entitled to conduct appropriate enquiry to find out whether there is manipulation, etc. But, in a case where the figures shown in the purchase invoice are not in any manner manipulated, and is the genuine figures shown therein by the dealer in the purchase invoice, and the respondents do not have a case that the said purchase value is not inclusive of VAT, GST or other taxes, duties etc, as envisaged in the 2nd limb of the operative portion of Sec.2(e) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, or that the figure is on the basis of discount or rebate given by the dealer to the registered owner, etc, or that the car has been purchased from a foreign country, or that the car has been obtained not on the basis of purchase, and therefore it's purchase value is not known on account of non availability of the invoice. The competent authority among the respondents, more particularly the 1st respondent shall immediately accept motor vehicle tax of the petitioner's car at the rate of 21% of the purchase value as shown in the invoice, and thereafter, the 1st respondent shall forthwith grant permanent registration to the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Governments and various Governments of the Union Territory Administrations concerned. 3. The matter in issue raised in these writ proceedings is covered by the judgment dated 30.1.2020 in WP(C).No.2399/2020 rendered by this Court in a similar case. The only difference is that, in the said case no such contentions as the one now sought to be advanced by the respondents on the basis of the abovesaid Union Government's letter dated 1.5.2019 has been advanced or attempted to be advanced at that point of time. The said arguments based on the said letter dated 1.5.2019 from the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, have been made in these cases. 4. The factual aspects stated in W.P. (C) No. 1190 of 2020 are as follows: The petitioner has purchased a new car of Audi Brand viz Audi Q7 45 TDI Q, for a total sum of ₹ 63,40,000/- as per Ext.P-1 purchase invoice issued by M/s. Anand Cars (P) Ltd., Indore, Madhya Pradesh. According to the petitioner, going by the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, and the Annexure I appended to the Schedule of the said Act, the motor vehicle tax payable by the petitioner in this case is 21% of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a vehicle acquired or obtained otherwise than by way of purchase is not ascertainable on account of non availability of the invoice, the purchase value shall be the value or price of the vehicles of the same specifications which are already registered or available with the manufacturer or as fixed by the Customs and Central Excise Department for the purpose of levying customs duty and includes excise or customs duty levied on the purchase or a motor vehicles, as the case may be. 7. It is also not in dispute that Clause 7A of Annexure I referred to (in the 2nd proviso of Sec.3) has been amended and substituted by the Kerala Finance Act, 2019 (Act 5 of 2019) (w.e.f. 1.4.2019) and the said Clause now reads as follows: 7A. Motor Cars and Private Service Vehicles for Personal Use (Non Transport Vehicles) [21% of the having purchase value of more than rupees purchase value of twenty lakh. the vehicle] 8. According to the petitioner, the motor vehicle tax payable in the instant case is 21% of the purchase value as shown in Ext.P-1 invoice issued by M/s.Anand Cars (P) Ltd., Indore, Madhya Pradesh, from where the petitioner had purchased the car. The 1st proviso to Sec.2(e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner as envisaged in the 1st proviso to Sec.2(e) of the abovesaid Act. So also, the respondents do not have a case that the purchase value as shown in Ext.P-1 invoice does not include the Value Added Tax, GST and other taxes as can be levied by the Central Government and the State Government, Cess and other duties as envisaged in the operative portion of Sec.2(e) of the abovesaid Act. 11. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that a perusal of Ext.P-1 invoice would show that the IGST and the State Compensation Cess have been duly reckoned in Ext.P-1 purchase invoice for arriving at the total figure of ₹ 63,40,000/- in Ext.P-1. 12. Based on these aspects, this Court has already held in the judgment dated 30.1.2020 in WP(C).No.2399/2020 rendered in a similar case that the motor vehicle tax payable as per the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, is 21% of the purchase value as shown in the invoice issued by the local dealer. While rendering that judgment, none of the present contentions which are sought to be raised by the respondents, have been advanced or attempted to be advanced in that case, for reasons not known to this Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Time Tax in accordance with Sec.7A of Annexure I r/w Sec.2(e) of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, and any deviation from the value so prescribed is undisputable and impermissible under law. 14. As mentioned herein above, copy of the abovesaid letter was not made available to this Court when the matter was heard and was about to be taken on judgment on 6.2.2020. The abovesaid letter bearing No. RT-11036/82/2017-MVL dated 1.5.2019 issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, reads as follows: The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways through an amendment in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (CMVR) made through GSR 870(E) dated 13th September, 2018 (Copy enclosed) has provisioned for the import of certain limited number of vehicles under various categories by the vehicle manufacturer directly or through their authorized representative for the purpose of further sale or research or by the organization/citizen for personal use, demonstration, testing, research or scientific use. 2. With the Ministry's online registration of vehicles system provided through NIC viz. VAHAN system in operation in the States, the process o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bliged to pay motor vehicle tax at the rate of 21% of ₹ 79,99,999/- and not at the rate of 21% of the purchase value as shown in Ext.P-1 invoice issued by the dealer of the car from where it has been purchased by the petitioner. 16. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the abovesaid stand taken by the respondents is untenable and unsustainable in law. If the abovesaid stand taken by the respondents is accepted, it will amount to re-writing the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976. The provisions contained in the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, more particularly Sec.2(e), Clause 7A of Annexure I referred to (in the 2nd proviso of Sec.3). Sec.2(e) categorically and conclusively define purchase value to mean the value of vehicle as shown in the purchase invoice and includes Value Added Tax, Good and Services Tax and such other taxes as may be levied by the Union and State Governments concerned, cess and customs/excise duty chargeable on vehicles, etc. The respondents do not have a case that the present Ext.P-1 invoice is not inclusive of the abovesaid tax amounts. So also the respondents do not have a case that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her than the value shown by the manufacturer in the web portal, then going by the abovesaid contentions raised by the respondents, they would still demand to taxation only at the rate of 21% of the lower figure of the manufacturer and not the higher figure actually charged by the dealer in the purchase invoice in a Southern State, which is illegal and ultra vires, etc. 18. After hearing both sides, this Court is not in a position to accept the contentions of the respondents that the figure shown by the manufacturer in the web portal, could be the legal basis to simply discard the actual figure that is based on the purchase invoice by the dealer, from where the owner of the car had purchased the car. In the instant case, the respondents do not have a case that Ext.P-1 invoice is in any manner manipulated or that the figures shown therein are not inclusive of the Value Added Tax or duties etc, or that the dealer has given by rebate to the petitioner, etc. 19. Hence in the light of these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the above said stand of the respondents that they can accept motor vehicle tax only at the rate of 21% of the figure shown by the manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to show the value of purchase value, then that is the golden key for unlocking the abovesaid provisions of the Act and the purchase value is to be mainly understood as per the definition in the operative portion of Sec.2(e). In the light of all these aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the abovesaid stand of the respondents cannot be countenanced in law, so long as the above provisions in Sec.2(e) are not amended to make it compatible to the requirements of the manufacturer's figure as stated in the Union Government's Letter. It is also to be borne in mind that the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Acts have been framed by the State Legislature concerned and once the field is covered by the State Law like the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, the Union Government cannot have any competence to issue any executive guidelines or executive orders, which goes against the plain mandate of the law made by the State Legislature concerned. So also, once the law made by the State Legislature is clear and categorical as per the State Law concerned, then even the Executive Government of the State concerned will not have any competence or jurisdiction to issue any ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y place reliance on the statement dated 6.2.2020 filed in connected WP(C).No.1190/2020. Since the respondents have not canvassed any factual submissions that the facts of this case are in any manner substantially distinct from the facts in WP(C).No.1190/2020, or the overall factual aspects in the case in WP(C).No.2399/2020 (which was disposed of on 30.1.2020), it is ordered as follows: It is pointed out by the petitioner that the purchased car is a demo (demonstration) or test drive car being given for such use by the manufacturer to the dealer and its registration for such use has been exempted by Chapter III of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The demo car has run for 9879 kms, before it was purchased by the petitioner from the dealer in Mumbai, as can be seen from Ext.P-4, it is averred. It is pointed out that the purchase value of the car as per Ext.P-1 invoice is the market value of that car used for test drive purposes, as per the prevailing market conditions and the figure in Ext.P-1 is not based on any rebate or discount and the figure in Ext.P-1 is also inclusive of the tax components thereto, as can be seen from Ext.P-1 invoice, it is averred. Therefore, the purchase val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
