IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.2.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.NO.26276 OF 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 M.Duraimurugan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Puduchatiram, Namakkal District. 2.The Transport Commissioner, Chepuak, Chennai 3.The Regional Transport Authority Namakkal .. Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.91641/E4/2010 dated 01.11.2010 quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to accept the tax @ 6% for two years on the auction value of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 09Q 1120 at Rs.38,500/-. for petitioner : Mr.N.Subramani for respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, G.A., (for R1 to R3) ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by third respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal in proceedings No.91641/E4/2010 dated 01.11.2010 and to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to accept the tax @ 6% for two years on the auction value of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 09Q 1120 at Rs.38,500/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has participated in a public auction held by the first respondent-The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Puduchatiram, Namakkal District on 19.8.2010 for purchasing the old jeep bearing Regn.No.TN 09Q 1120. Having become the successful bidder, the petitioner was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ declared as the “successful bidder” for a sum of Rs.38,500/- along with 12.5% VAT and 4% additional tax. The petitioner has also paid the total sum of Rs.44,850/- to the first respondent. After that the petitioner as per the direction issued by the first respondent had paid the insurance amount for the abovesaid vehicle. After paying the insurance, he approached the second respondent, Transport Commissioner, Chepauk for transfer of permit and mutation of name in all the records. Again the second respondent directed the petitioner to pay life tax which comes to Rs.20,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner at this juncture is that the vehicle was 12 years old at the time of his purchase from auction held on 19.8.2010. Since the Government has not paid the life tax to the vehicle, the second respondent insisted the petitioner by letter dated 26.10.2010 to pay life tax at the rate of 6% as per the purchase amount during 1998. But the petitioner is prepared to pay life tax at the rate of 6% only at the rate of purchase made by him on 19.8.2010. Therefore, the petitioner came to this Court by challenging the impugned order issued by the third respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal demanding payment of life tax at the rate of 6% at the cost of the vehicle sold in the first sale. 2. In reply, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette- Extraordinary published on 24.5.2010, Part IV-Section 2 indicates how much will be the life tax taxable on the vehicle from the purchaser. In the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, for the Third Schedule, the following Schedule is substituted. “THIRD SCHEDULE. [See section 4(1-A)] PART-I New motor vehicles Rate of Tax At the time of registration (i)Total cost of the vehicle not exceeding rupees ten lakhs-10 per cent. (ii)Total cost of vehicle exceeding rupees ten lakhs-15 per cent PART-II Old motor vehicles At the time of assigning new Registration mark under section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988), or old motor vehicles plying and registered in this State, and if it’s age from the month of such registration is,- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rate of tax Cost of the vehicle Cost of the Not exceeding rupees vehicle exceeding Ten lakhs ten lakhs 1.Not more than 8.75 per cent of the 13.75 per cent one year cost of vehicle of the cost of vehicle 2.More than 8.50 per cent of the 13.50 per cent one year but cost of vehicle of the cost of not more than vehicle two years 3.More than two 8.25 per cent of the 13.25 per cent of years but not of vehicle the cost of vehicle more than three years 4.More than three 8.00 per cent of the 13.00 per cent of years but not cost of vehicle the cost of the more than four vehicle years 5.More than four 7.75 per cent of the 12.75 per cent of years but not cost of vehicle the cost of the more than five vehicle years 6.More than five 7.50 per cent of the 12.50 per cent of years but not cost of vehicle the cost of the more than six vehicle years 7.More than six 7.25 per cent of the 12.25 per cent of years but not cost of vehicle the cost of the more than seven vehicle years 8.More than seven 7.00 per cent of the 12.00 per cent of years but not cost of vehicle the cost of the more than eight vehicle years https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9.More than eight 6.75 per cent of the 11.75 per cent of years but not cost of vehicle the cost of the more than nine vehicle years 10.More than nine 6.50 per cent of the 11.50 per cent of years but not cost of vehicle the cost of the more than ten vehicle years 11.More than ten 6.25 per cent of the 11.25 per cent of years but not cost of vehicle the cost of the more than eleven vehicle years 12.More than eleven 6.00 per cent of the 11.00 per cent of years cost of vehicle the cost of the vehicle As per III schedule, the rate of tax payable by the purchaser of the vehicle is unambiguously given. For instance, if a vehicle is more than one year but not more than two years and the cost of the vehicle is not exceeding Rs.10 lakhs, 8.50% of the cost of the vehicle is the life tax. If the cost of the vehicle is exceeding Rs.10 lakhs, 13.50% of the cost of the vehicle is mentioned as life tax. In the case of the petitioner, admittedly, the vehicle is more than 11 years old. Therefore, the vehicle is falling under Part-II, Sl.No.12 wherein 6% of the cost of the vehicle is the life tax. To make it clear an explanation is also given under the schedule which reads as under: “Explanation.-For the purpose of this Schedule, “cost of vehicle” means the cost of vehicle at the time of purchase, in such manner as may be prescribed.” Therefore, a mere reading of the III schedule as well as the Explanation given thereunder shows that the petitioner is required to pay 6% of the cost of the vehicle by taking into account the first purchase of the vehicle by the Government and not the second purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not supplied with the purchasing bill of the vehicle. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to ask for the purchase bill from whom the vehicle was purchased so as to determine the rate of tax. The apprehension is unless and other wise the petitioner is issued with the purchase bill he would not be able to calculate the rate of tax. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to approach the respondents for getting the purchase bill so as to find out the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ original value of the vehicle purchased by him. The invoice also should give the total cost of the vehicle. It is for the respondents either to provide a copy of the original purchase bill or the invoice, so that the petitioner will be in a position to find out the original cost of the vehicle purchased. 5. In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1/2010 is also dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sal To 1.The Commissioner Panchayat Union Puduchatiram Namakkal District 2.The Transport Commissioner Chepuak, Chennai. 3.The Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.13638. 1 cc To Mr.N.Subramani, Advocate, SR.13212. W.P.NO.26276/2010 & M.P.No.1/2010 RSY(CO) RVL 11.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/