TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Section 16(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, and the consequential provisions providing for confiscation of vehicles are repugnant to Section 66 read with Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and invalid for want of compliance with Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The confiscatory power under Section 16(6) was held to arise not from mere non-payment of tax, but from the commission of an offence under Section 66 read with Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Vehicles Act already prescribed the nature and degree of punishment for that offence, whereas the State provision introduced an additional and more stringent consequence, namely confiscation of the vehicle. The Court found that both enactments operated on the same offence and could not stand together because the State law imposed a further penalty inconsistent with the Union law. In such a situation, the State law could prevail only if protected by Presidential assent under Article 254(2), and that requirement was not satisfied for the impugned provisions.
Conclusion: Section 16(6) and the consequential provisions were held repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and invalid.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
