Life Tax For Pre-Owned Vehicle Valid: Telangana High Court

Hyderabad:Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea challenging the demand for life tax on a pre-owned vehicle brought into the state from Delhi, ruling that the levy was lawful under state taxation laws. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Vattikuti Abbaiah, who purchased a 2013 model vehicle for Rs 9.75 lakh from a Delhi-based company and sought transfer of ownership in Hyderabad. Although the one-time tax (OTT) was paid in Delhi, the Telangana transport department demanded Rs 14.91 lakh as life tax, calculated at 15.5 per cent of the vehicle’s original invoice price of Rs 92.5 lakh, along with a penalty. Challenging this demand, the petitioner argued that the vehicle, being nearly 10 years old and significantly depreciated in value, should not attract life tax based on its original cost. The government pleader defended the tax demand, citing GO of May 7, 2022. It was contended that the levy violated Section 47(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 96 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The petitioner contended that under the Telangana Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (TMVT Act), life tax is levied independently by the state on vehicles used or kept for use within Telangana. Taxes paid in Delhi, the judge was told, do not exempt liability under Telangana’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, it was clarified that the so-called “transfer charges” were penalties for delayed tax payment as mandated under the TMVT Rules. The judge noted that Section 3 of the Act empowered the state to levy tax on all motor vehicles within its territory, and the GO prescribed that tax for vehicles entering the state rolls through ownership transfer should be calculated on the original invoice price, with depreciation for age. Since the vehicle was less than 10 years old and valued above `20 lakh, an 18 per cent tax rate was correctly applied.

Faulty FIR invalidates probe: HC

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court ruled that the registration of a case by the police under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides for “obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions” without jurisdiction was illegal. Once an illegality permeated the investigation, such investigation could not be construed as lawful. The judge quashed criminal proceedings against Tippani Srinivas Reddy, and three others accused in a land grabbing case, holding that the prosecution suffered from fundamental legal defects. The petitioners were charged under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners trespassed on open land handed over to the GHMC for public use and obstructed officials from discharging their duties during an attempt to halt alleged illegal constructions. Based on the complaint lodged by a GHMC deputy commissioner, the police registered a case and filed a chargesheet against the petitioners. The petitioners argued that the proceedings were vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions. Counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 195(1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), no court could take cognisance of an offence under Section 186 IPC except upon a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned. The judge observed that in the present case, no such private complaint was filed before the magistrate; instead, the police themselves registered the FIR. The judge found the actions of the police to be without jurisdiction.

Advocate alleges misconduct by cops

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, on Tuesday treated a letter from advocate Pandit Roopa Dimple as a writ petition following serious allegations of police misconduct. In her letter, Dimple alleged that while returning from court with her husband, officials from the Central Crime Station (CCS) intercepted their vehicle, forcibly seized their mobile phones and cameras without providing any justification. She alleged that around 20 police personnel assaulted her by pulling her hair, dragging her on to the road, and manhandling her before falsely implicating her in a criminal case. Seeking urgent judicial intervention, the letter requested the court to take suo motu cognisance and order a judicial inquiry or CBI investigation into the incident. After considering the allegations, the panel directed the government pleader to file a response within four weeks.

Contract coaches seek regularization

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the inaction of the Sports Authority of Telangana (SAT) and other authorities in regularising the services of long-serving contract coaches. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Ratan Kumar Bose and six others, contract coaches with the SAT, seeking regularisation of their services and grant of pensionary benefits on par with regular coaches. The petitioners, who have each served over 31 years in various disciplines including athletics, handball, kabaddi, volleyball, and gymnastics, contended that their appointments were made following a proper selection process, including advertisement, interviews, and approval by the finance department. The petitioners argued that despite decades of continuous service, their services remain unregularised, which was arbitrary, unfair, and contrary to the principles of equal treatment. The petitioners relied on previous decisions of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court where the services of similar contract coaches were directed to be regularised. The petitioners sought a direction to regularise their services from the date of initial appointment, along with consequential benefits, including pension. The judge posted the matter for further hearing.