The Bombay High Court has refused to grant relief on a petition challenging the decision of a Regional Transport Office (RTO) to levy environment tax on a 33-year-old Premier Padmini car,which was mechanically unfit and rendered permanently unusable. However,Justice B P Dharmadhikari allowed the petitioner to obtain a certificate from the Transport Commissioner of a non-user. The petitioner had claimed before Nagpur RTO that his vehicle was not in use and he wanted it to be treated as a scrap. Therefore,he sought de-registration,contending that the car had lost its road worthiness. The judge said that under the provisions of the law,it was necessary for the petitioner to inform the competent authority about this development in advance or within seven days and to obtain a certificate that the vehicle was not used or kept for use in the state from that date onwards". "He could have even moved the Transport Commissioner and placed the entire material before him and sought a certificate of non user. The petitioner has not explained why he has not taken recourse to these provisions in law ",the judge observed. "Though,nobody has argued on the question whether the petitioner can approach the Transport Commissioner under the provisions of law,we feel that the petitioner may still approach that Authority,if he is so advised. Hence,we keep that remedy open for him," the judge further noted. In the result,the judge ruled that no case warranting any interference of the court was made out. He,therefore,dismissed the petition. The petitioner,Ashokkumar Shankarprasad,had challenged the decision of the authorities of introducing Environment Tax by amending the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act. During the arguments,petitioner's counsel T D Mandlekar,made it clear that his client is not pressing the challenge or question of the constitutional validity. However,as the vehicle is incapable of being used on road for being mechanically unfit,the same cannot be taxed and hence the arrears of Environment Tax being charged was unsustainable. The petitioner said he had sought cancellation of registration of the vehicle from the office of RTO,with whom the car was registered. However,the RTO had insisted that he should pay additional tax of Rs 3,000 along with interest of Rs 60 per month over and above the one time tax,which has already been paid for this vehicle from October 15,2010. The lawyer contended that the demand and arrears dated August 27,2012,were questioned in the petition. The court was told that the vehicle was not capable of being used on road and hence the petitioner had made an application to the RTO on November 14,2011,for cancellation of registration with a view to sell the same as scrap. The car was not in use two years prior to the date of application. The RTO processed the application and made the demand of payment of arrears. Being aggrieved,the petitioner moved the High Court. The court noted that Section 3 of Bombay Motor Vehicles Act 1958 Act is about levy of tax by the State Government at the rate specified in notification. According to section 3(2),an owner or person in possession of the vehicle is deemed to use it or have kept such vehicle for use in State during any period specified in the intimation. Intimation in writing has to be in the prescribed manner and it obliges the taxing authority to certify that such motor vehicle was not used or kept for use in the state during the period specified in the certificate. This subsection has got a proviso which deals with the vehicles rendered incapable of being used on account of any accident or similar defect. The proviso states that in such a situation which makes it impossible to give intimation of the non-user in advance,the intimation may be given in writing within seven days from the date of occurrence of such accident or such defect.
