https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300830 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. en-us Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 27 Feb 2022 20:35:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300830 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300830