Financier Possessing Vehicle Based On Hire-Purchase Or Hypothecation Agreement Liable To Pay Tax Under U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act

Case: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs State of U.P.

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Case No.: CA 1217 of 2022

Court Observation: “As per Section 2(h) of the Act,1997 read with Section 2(30) of the Act, 1988, even a person in possession of the vehicle under the hire purchase agreement or an agreement of sell or an agreement of hypothecation can also be said to be the “owner”. Therefore, a financier like the appellant, who is in possession of the transport vehicle in question owing to non-payment of the loan amount is an “owner” under the relevant provisions of the Act, 1997 and Act, 1988″.

It is held that a financier of a motor vehicle/transport vehicle in respect of which a hire-purchase or lease or hypothecation agreement has been entered, is liable to tax from the date of taking possession of the said vehicle under the said agreement. If, after the payment of tax, the vehicle is not used for a month or more, then such an owner may apply for refund under Section 12 of the Act, 1997 and has to comply with all the requirements for seeking the refund as mentioned in Section 12, and 26 on fulfilling and/or complying with all the conditions mentioned in Section 12(1), he may get the refund to the extent provided in sub-section (1) of Section 12, as even under Section 12(1), the owner / operator shall not be entitled to the full refund but shall be entitled to the refund of an amount equal to one-third of the rate of quarterly tax or one twelfth of the yearly tax, as the case may be, payable in respect of such vehicle for each thirty days of such period for which such tax has been paid. However, only in a case, which falls under sub-section (2) of Section 12 and subject to surrender of the necessary documents as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 12, the liability to pay the tax shall not arise, otherwise the liability to pay the tax by such owner/operator shall continue.

Previous Posts

Duration Of Blacklisting Cannot Be Solely Per Offence: Supreme Court Disapproves Guidelines Framed By Odisha Govt.

Pure Business To Business Disputes Cannot Be Construed As Consumer Disputes: Supreme Court

Section 138 NI Act – Prima Facie Indication That Complaint Is Filed By Authorized Person of Company Sufficient For Magistrate to Take Cognisance: Supreme Court

Compassionate Appointment Policy Cannot Discriminate Against Illegitimate Children Of Deceased Employee: Supreme Court

Partition Suit- Plaintiff Not Disentitled to Seek Relief in Second Appeal Merely Because He Did Not File First Appeal against Denial of His Claims by Trial Court: Supreme Court

Applicability Of Res Judicata Between Co-Defendants: Supreme Court Explains Download Judgement