High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy

14 November 2024 1:37 PM

By: sayum


"The eligibility criteria laid down for exemption notification is required to be construed strictly," - Supreme Court ruling referenced by Allahabad High Court in rejecting the refund claim. On November 5, 2024, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition by Ankur Vikram Singh seeking a refund of ₹1,74,900 paid as a one-time tax (OTT) on his hybrid vehicle. The petitioner argued that his vehicle should qualify for tax exemption under the Uttar Pradesh Electric Vehicle Manufacturing and Mobility Policy, 2022, as it was registered post-policy notification. However, the court upheld that the tax exemption applied only to electric vehicles purchased on or after the policy date, October 14, 2022.

Ankur Vikram Singh purchased a hybrid vehicle on October 13, 2022, and paid a one-time tax of ₹1,74,900 under the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997. The vehicle was registered on October 18, 2022. On March 2, 2023, the state of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under the Electric Vehicle Policy, 2022, exempting electric vehicles purchased and registered in the state after October 14, 2022, from motor vehicle taxes.

Singh filed a petition requesting a tax refund, arguing that the vehicle registration post-dated the policy notification, qualifying him for the exemption.

The court examined the language of the notification, which stated that tax exemptions were available for electric vehicles purchased and registered in Uttar Pradesh on or after October 14, 2022.

Justice Arun Bhansali cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Star Industries v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Raigad (2016), emphasizing that exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly. The High Court found that the eligibility for exemption required both purchase and registration to occur after the policy date, rejecting Singh’s argument that post-policy registration alone was sufficient for a refund.

The court noted that Singh’s vehicle was purchased on October 13, 2022, a day before the policy’s effective date, and the tax was paid based on the existing legal requirements at that time. Despite the vehicle's registration occurring after the policy date, this did not alter the purchase timeline, which precluded the petitioner from claiming the exemption.

Strict Adherence to Policy Dates: The court emphasized that the policy explicitly required electric vehicle purchases and registrations to occur from October 14, 2022, onwards. Any deviation from this specified timeframe would compromise the notification’s legislative intent.

Precedent on Exemption Interpretation: By referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Star Industries, the court affirmed that exemptions are a matter of statutory interpretation, necessitating strict adherence to outlined eligibility criteria.

Dismissal of Refund Claim: The court concluded that Singh’s purchase prior to the policy date rendered him ineligible for the exemption, thereby dismissing the petition and denying the refund request.

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Ankur Vikram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reiterates the strict statutory interpretation of tax exemptions, especially when eligibility dates are clearly defined. This case reinforces that eligibility for tax relief under policy exemptions is contingent on full compliance with specified purchase and registration timelines.

Date of Decision: November 5, 2024

Similar News