https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402712 Tax liability under the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was linked to use of the vehicle, so demand for tax and additional tax could not survive beyond the expiry of the relevant 20-year period where the vehicle had ceased to be fit for use. The Court also held that a request for relief under Rule 22-A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 had been rejected on an incorrect footing, because the authority was required to conduct a proper enquiry into whether the vehicle was lost, destroyed, permanently incapable of use, transferred out of the State, or otherwise non-existent. The later-period demand was set aside in part, and the Rule 22-A issue was remanded for fresh consideration. en-us Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:04:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402712 Tax liability under the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was linked to use of the vehicle, so demand for tax and additional tax could not survive beyond the expiry of the relevant 20-year period where the vehicle had ceased to be fit for use. The Court also held that a request for relief under Rule 22-A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 had been rejected on an incorrect footing, because the authority was required to conduct a proper enquiry into whether the vehicle was lost, destroyed, permanently incapable of use, transferred out of the State, or otherwise non-existent. The later-period demand was set aside in part, and the Rule 22-A issue was remanded for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402712