https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369190 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. en-us Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Oct 2018 06:50:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369190 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369190