Roadworthiness certificate in equivalent form suffices for registration, but earlier motor vehicle tax liability remains enforceable.
Refusal to register the vehicle for want of Form No. 22 was unjustified because the manufacturer's certificate in Form No. 22A satisfied the substantive requirement of roadworthiness; the defect was only in the form used, so registration could not be denied on that ground. Motor vehicle tax for the earlier period was nevertheless enforceable because tax liability arose on use or keeping the vehicle for use in the State, and the transferee or person in possession could be liable where earlier tax remained unpaid. The demand was therefore sustained, and relief was limited to setting aside the registration refusal.
Issues: (i) Whether refusal to register the vehicle on the ground that Form No. 22 had not been produced was justified when the petitioner had produced a manufacturer's certificate in Form No. 22A; (ii) Whether the demand of motor vehicle tax for the earlier period could be enforced against the petitioner and whether registration could be refused on that basis.
Issue (i): Whether refusal to register the vehicle on the ground that Form No. 22 had not been produced was justified when the petitioner had produced a manufacturer's certificate in Form No. 22A.
Analysis: The certificate required for registration was a certificate of road worthiness. Form No. 22A, though ordinarily used where a vehicle is sent for bodybuilding work outside the manufacturer's premises, still served the same substantive purpose when the vehicle was not sent out for such work. The petitioner had produced the manufacturer's certificate, and the defect was only in the form used. In substance, the requirement of producing a roadworthiness certificate stood complied with.
Conclusion: The refusal on this ground was not justified and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand of motor vehicle tax for the earlier period could be enforced against the petitioner and whether registration could be refused on that basis.
Analysis: Under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, tax is levied on motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State. Once the vehicle had been transferred and used, the tax liability arose. If the vehicle was subsequently repossessed and not used, the appropriate course was to seek relief on the basis of non-use. Section 4(1) required advance payment by the registered owner or person in possession or control, and Section 8 fastened liability on the transferee or person in possession when the earlier liability remained unpaid. The petitioner's reliance on the cited precedents was found inapplicable on the facts.
Conclusion: The tax demand was upheld and the petitioner failed on this issue.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the refusal to register the vehicle for want of Form No. 22, while the demand of tax was sustained, resulting in only partial relief to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: A roadworthiness certificate may be accepted in its substantively equivalent form if the statutory purpose is satisfied, but motor vehicle tax liability continues with use and transfer of the vehicle unless non-use is established in the manner recognised by the Act.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
