The Jammu & Kashmir High Court, in a significant ruling, has clarified the legal requirements concerning the re-registration of vehicles that are brought into the Union Territory (UT) from another state. The judgment was delivered by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani in the case of Ishfaq Ahmad Tramboo v. UT of J&K & Others [WP(C) 3117/2023 c/w CCP(S) 67/2024].
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ishfaq Ahmad Tramboo, a resident of Srinagar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the demand made by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) of Kashmir for 9% of the declared value of his vehicle as a precondition for assigning a new registration mark in Jammu and Kashmir. The vehicle in question, bearing registration number HR 26 CL 6404, was originally registered in Gurgaon, Haryana.
Tramboo purchased the vehicle in 2015 and decided to bring it to Jammu & Kashmir in October 2023. When he approached the RTO for re-registration, he was informed that he must first pay 9% of the vehicle’s value as a “token tax.” This demand was made under the provisions of the J&K Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963.
Legal Issues Involved
The core legal issue revolved around whether a vehicle already registered in one state needs to be re-registered when brought to another state or union territory, especially after being kept there for more than 12 months, and whether the authorities in Jammu & Kashmir can demand additional taxes as a condition for such re-registration.
The petitioner heavily relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Zahoor Ahmad Bhat v. Government of J&K & Others [WP(C) 669/2021], which had addressed a similar controversy. In that case, the court held that once a vehicle is registered in any state in India, it does not require re-registration elsewhere in the country. The petitioner argued that the demand for additional tax was contrary to this precedent.
Court’s Decision
After considering the arguments and reviewing the legal provisions, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani allowed the petition. The court reiterated that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not provide for re-registration and payment of fees upon such re-registration if the vehicle is already registered in another state.
The court referred to Sections 46 and 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which clarify that a vehicle registered in one state does not need to be re-registered elsewhere in India, although a new registration mark must be assigned if the vehicle is kept in another state for over 12 months. Importantly, the court emphasized that the act does not authorize the demand for a 9% token tax as a precondition for re-registration.
In a key observation, the court cited the Division Bench’s ruling in the Zahoor Ahmad Bhat case, noting:
“A life time tax that is levied at the point of registration of a vehicle in terms of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot be levied on a vehicle registered, merely on a presumption that a vehicle registered outside Union Territory of J&K, has remained in the Union Territory of J&K for a period exceeding 12 months.”
Justice Wani directed the respondents to assign a new registration mark to the petitioner’s vehicle without demanding the 9% token tax and allowed them to seek a refund of the token tax paid in Haryana, as had been done in the Zahoor Ahmad Bhat case.
Also Read
Case Details
Case Title: Ishfaq Ahmad Tramboo v. UT of J&K & Others
Case Number: WP(C) 3117/2023 c/w CCP(S) 67/2024
Bench: Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
Petitioner: Ishfaq Ahmad Tramboo, aged 65 years, S/o Abdul Ahad Tramboo, R/o Nishat, Srinagar
Respondents:
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, through Commissioner/Secretary, Transport Department, Government of J&K, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu
2. Transport Commissioner, Government of J&K, Srinagar
3. Regional Transport Officer, Kashmir, Srinagar
Petitioner’s Advocate: Mr. Hakim Suhail Ishtiaq
Respondents’ Advocate: Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, Government Advocate
