New Delhi: The Supreme Court has admitted that the motor vehicle tax, which is levied for the use of public places and infrastructure, cannot be levied if a vehicle does not use the same.“Motor vehicle tax is compensatory in nature. It is a straight Nexus with final use. The argument for a motor vehicle tax levy is that a person who is using public infrastructure, such as roads, highways etc. To pay for such use. The legislature consciously used the expression ‘public place’ in Section 3. If a motor vehicle is not used in ‘public place’ or is not kept for use in ‘public place’, the person concerned is not getting benefits from public infrastructure; Therefore, they should not be a burden with motor vehicle tax for this period, “said by a bench of Justice Manoj Mishra and Ujjal Bhuin. Explaining the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the bench passed the order, which Section 3 says that the government may be directly directly directly directly directly or will be taxed on every motor vehicle used in a public place in the state.This allowed a company’s petition, which requested that it was not liable to pay tax as its vehicles were used in the nation remittance yard campus, which belonged to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant of Rashtria Ishantria Nigam Limited (Rinal) and were not on public roads. The state had taken a stand that there may not be a basis to avoid real use or non-use of public roads. The bench stated that taxable phenomena under Section 3 arises when a vehicle is used or kept for use in a public place in the state.“Therefore, the tax is on the user or the ‘public place’ intends for the use of the motor vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle is actually used in a ‘public place’ or kept in such a way that it is used in ‘public space’ then tax liabilities are received…. The need for law is that the motor vehicle should be used or kept for use in ‘public space’. When certainly the appellant’s motor vehicles were limited to use within the RINL complex, which is a closed area, vehicles are being used or to be used in ‘public places’, “It does not,” it is said.The court stated that motor vehicles were used in question or kept only for use within the restricted complex of the renal, which was not a public place. “Therefore, the said vehicles are not liable to levy tax for the period that the said vehicles were used or placed for use within the restricted complex of the rhinal. Defendant’s argument that the appellant did not do the non-use of motor vehicles in the context of Rule 12A, which we have discussed, we have not discussed too much. Thus, even in the absence of any information in the context of Rule 12A, the appellator’s motor vehicles cannot be subjected to motor vehicle tax for the period used or limited within the restricted complex of the renal “.
