Registration-linked parking fee recovery upheld where dealers were authorised to collect the levy in sale documents.

The municipal Urban Transport and Parking Development Fee was treated as a one-time levy payable by the purchaser at the time of purchase or registration, and dealers were authorised to recover it. Because the petitioner had quoted the fee in sale-related documents and Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 supported a registration-linked recovery mechanism, the HC found the direction to furnish vehicle-sale particulars and show non-recovery of the fee justified. No ground for interference was made out, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order directing the petitioner to furnish vehicle-sale details and comply with recovery of Urban Transport and Parking Development Fee was liable to be entertained.

Analysis: The parking fee was imposed by municipal resolutions as a one-time levy payable by the purchaser at the time of purchase or registration of the vehicle. The record indicated that dealers were authorised to recover the fee and that the petitioner had, in fact, quoted parking fee in sale-related documents. Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was also relied upon in support of the registration-linked recovery mechanism. In these circumstances, the direction to furnish sale particulars and establish non-recovery of the fee was held to be justified, and no ground for interference was made out.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the impugned order was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

---