Harpy Core Network India Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

[2026:RJ-JP:43947-DB]

REPORTABLE

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

Judgment reserved on: 28.10.2026/29.10.2026
Judgment delivered on: 02.11.2026
Judgment (Full) uploaded on: 02.11.2026

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11028/2025 [item 1 of the cause title]
CNR: RJHC020622242025 | URN: CW / 24823U / 2025

Harpy Core Network India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana, Through Its Director [name, parentage, age and address omitted by NyayVidhan] Vehicle No. Hr-26-Dn-0446 ----Petitioner
Versus
(1) State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (2) Transport Commissioner (Taxation), Transport And Road Safety Department, Transport Department Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur- 302005 (Rajasthan). (3) District Transport Officer And Taxation Officer, Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur (Rajasthan). (4) Motor Vehicle Inspector, Flying Squad, Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents

Connected With

[89 connected writ petitions, items 2-90 of the cause title, listed here by case number in the order printed: D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16865/2025, 5405/2026, 6431/2026, 6439/2026, 7889/2026, 9649/2026, 10488/2025, 17098/2025, 17394/2025, 20871/2025, 3968/2026, 4801/2026, 4871/2026, 5049/2026, 5084/2026, 5374/2026, 5433/2026, 5454/2026, 5514/2026, 5627/2026, 5750/2026, 5845/2026, 5917/2026, 6004/2026, 6122/2026, 6137/2026, 6274/2026, 6289/2026, 6291/2026, 6292/2026, 6327/2026, 6369/2026, 6424/2026, 6427/2026, 6435/2026, 6443/2026, 6501/2026, 6526/2026, 6542/2026, 6579/2026, 6581/2026, 6582/2026, 6713/2026, 6810/2026, 6872/2026, 6873/2026, 6878/2026, 6904/2026, 6907/2026, 7016/2026, 7034/2026, 7045/2026, 7048/2026, 7156/2026, 7210/2026, 7266/2026, 7317/2026, 7426/2026, 7521/2026, 7574/2026, 7687/2026, 7851/2026, 8158/2026, 8272/2026, 8296/2026, 8353/2026, 8432/2026, 9051/2026, 9056/2026, 9061/2026, 9087/2026, 9160/2026, 9427/2026, 9666/2026, 9992/2026, 10050/2026, 11119/2026, 11317/2026, 11363/2026, 11364/2026, 11365/2026, 11883/2026, 11885/2026, 16821/2026, 19025/2026, 9304/2026, 8495/2026, 8373/2026, 15574/2026. The petitioners' names, parentage, ages, addresses and vehicle particulars are omitted by NyayVidhan. The respondents in each are the State of Rajasthan and its transport and taxation authorities.]

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya P. Pathak & Mr. Utkarsh Meena Ms. Anushree Agarwal with Ms. Anant Priya Jain Mr. RB Sharma Ganthola Mr. Vedant Sharma, Mr. Shivam Sharma & Mr. Sundaram Sharma Mr. Srijan Tiwari, Mr. Tanay Jain, Mr. Prakhar Sharma & Mr. Rahul Sogani Mr. Rahul Singh, Mr. Ravindra Faujadar & Ms. Ayushi Choudhary Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Sumit Choudhary & Mr. Pranav Sharma Mr. Hariom Yadav on behalf of Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, Mr. Harsh Dhadhich Ms. Lata Kumari & Ms. Surbhi Singhal on behalf of Mr. Amit Jindal Mr. Tarun Dopahariya & Mr. Vishal Karnani, Mr. Vikram Sharma, Mr. Pradhuman S. Rathore with Mr. Sandeep Singh Nirwan, Mr. Rishabh Bhidasara, Mr. Kapil Bardhar with Ms. Anshulika Pareek & Mr. Himanshu Kaushik, Mr. Parikshit Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma & Mr. Siddhant Bhanawat Mr. Deependra Yadav with Mr. Aayush Goyal, Mr. MS Raghav with Ms. Kirti Rathore & Mr. Vishvas Saini
For Respondent(s): Mr. SS Naruka, AAG assisted by Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore, Mr. Tanishq Aditya Parmar, Mr. Manish Sharma, Mr. Ritik Singh Dahiya & Ms. Ritika Naruka Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj

[NyayVidhan notes: Stored from the official Rajasthan High Court PDF of the judgment (hcraj file 205200113642026_4.pdf, 62 pages, uploaded 02.11.2026). (1) The paragraph numbers 1-41 and the headings are the Court's own; the table of contents is reproduced as printed. (2) The cause title runs to 42 pages: the lead petition is shown with the director's name, parentage, age and address omitted, and the 89 connected petitions are listed by case number only, in the order printed (items 2-90); their petitioners' names, parentage, ages, addresses and vehicle particulars are omitted. The lead case's item number '1.' is shown as '[item 1 of the cause title]' and its respondents' numbers as (1)-(4). (3) The six footnotes (Supreme Court citations) are shown as [1]-[6] in the text and collected after the signatures. (4) Quoted provisions in paragraphs 17, 22 and 26 start on a new line. (5) The Hindi lines in paragraph 29 are typed from the rendered page, because the PDF's text layer drops their vowel signs. (6) The text is otherwise as printed, including slips such as 'though in registered', 'exeeding', 'Rule 28 (j)', 'compete exemption' and the unclosed '(c' in paragraph 37. Page furniture (running heads, page numbers, upload/download stamps, the staff line and the TCPDF line) is removed. The PDF is authoritative.]

[Source: Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — judgment dated 2 November 2026.]

DIVISION BENCH
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Sanjay K. Agrawal, CJ

For the sake of convenience, the judgment is divided in following parts:-

[Table, as printed:]
| S.No. | Particulars | Page Nos. |
| 1 | Challenge in the writ petitions | 44 |
| 2 | Relevant facts | 44 |
| 3 | Submissions on behalf of the petitioners | 47 |
| 4 | Submission on behalf of the respondents | 48 |
| 5 | Question for consideration | 49 |
| 6 | Article 265 of the Constitution of India | 50 |
| 7 | Imposition of Tax under The Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 | 51 |
| 8 | Whether Notification dated 10.07.2024 satisfies the requirements of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 for non-transport private vehicles registered outside the State? | 56 |
| 9 | Discussions and Analysis | 57 |
| 10 | Non-compliance of Sections 8A, 13, 13A and 17 of the Act of 1951 | 60 |
| 11 | Conclusion and Relief | 61 |

Challenge in the writ petitions

1. This batch of writ petitions is directed against the action of the respondent-State of Rajasthan with a prayer to quash the illegal demand of tax on the motor vehicles of the petitioners herein. A further prayer has been made to issue appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that the motor vehicles registered outside the State of Rajasthan, on which one time or lifetime tax has been paid, will not be liable to pay one time tax under Section 4(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1951’) and the rules framed thereunder, i.e., the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1951’). Further relief is sought to declare the action of impounding the petitioners’ vehicle as illegal and without authority of law.

2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in this batch of writ petitions, therefore, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11028/2025-Harpy Core Network India Private Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, is being taken as a lead case.

Relevant facts

3. The petitioner-Harpy Core Network India Private Limited, which is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-26-DN-0446, registered in Haryana as a non-transport private vehicle, has preferred this writ petition stating, inter alia, that on the relevant date, the car was being driven by his brother-in-law Mr. Ravindra Yadav, Director of the petitioner’s company. The said vehicle was intercepted by the respondent Motor Vehicle Inspector in the State of Rajasthan and members of the flying squad, who then issued challan bearing No. R0163875250317091727 for contravention of the Act of 1951/the Rules of 1951 and for vehicle being found without payment of tax in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner was accordingly directed to deposit the tax for release of the vehicle.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid demand of tax was without any demand letter, notice, order or without any intimation of provisions of law and the respondents threatened to seize and impound the vehicle of the petitioner, if he fails to pay one time road tax and accordingly, compound letter dated 17.03.2025 was issued. Thereafter, the said vehicle was impounded, which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder, i.e., Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Act of 1951 and the Rules of 1951. The petitioner was directed to deposit tax of Rs.6,78,274/- for release of the vehicle and ultimately, the respondents refused to release the impounded vehicle to harass and extort money from the petitioner under the garb of tax on motor vehicles, which is highly arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, a prayer has been made to quash the illegal demand of tax on the motor vehicle and set aside the letter 17.03.2025 and impounding of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No.HR-26-DN-0446 be quashed.

5. A return has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the private non-transport vehicles involved in these matters, though in registered in other States, were intercepted during enforcement checking and found to have been continuously kept and operated within the State of Rajasthan beyond the permissible temporary period of 30 days without payment of tax under the Act of 1951, leading to seizure and demand of tax.

6. It is the further case of the respondents that Rule 28(i) of the Rules of 1951 requires that as soon as such vehicle is brought into Rajasthan, the owner/in-charge shall send an intimation and if the vehicle is used or kept for use in Rajasthan exceeding 30 days, the liability to pay tax, as notified in the State, commences from the very first day the vehicle was brought in to Rajasthan.

7. It is the further case of the respondents that Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 has no application whatsoever to private non-transport vehicles. Though Section 4(1)(c) refers to vehicles registered outside the State, using roads in Rajasthan, its statutory rate ceilings confine only three categories of transient commercial and road-wear vehicles: (i) Passenger vehicles (not exceeding Rs. 2000/- per day); (ii) Goods vehicles (not exceeding Rs. 2000/- per 1000 Kg GVW for 30 days); and (iii) Construction equipment vehicles (not exceeding Rs. 5000/- per 1000 Kg ULW for 30 days). Likewise, clauses (c) and (d) of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1951 are confined to temporarily registered chassis passing through the State and vehicles in the possessions of dealers/manufacturers.

8. Further, Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 neither mentions non-transport vehicles, nor prescribes any statutory ceiling for private motor cars and therefore, the State Government cannot legally issue a notification for private non-transport vehicles under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951. Consequently, the taxing power over all non-transport vehicles, whether registered in Rajasthan or brought from outside Rajasthan and kept beyond 30 days, vest exclusively in Section 4(1)(b) of the Act of 1951. As such, the State Government, while exercising powers under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act of 1951, issued notification dated 10.07.2024 prescribing the rates of one-time tax for non-transport vehicles. Proviso (iv) and explanation (i)(b) of the said notification expressly govern the vehicles ‘already registered in or outside the State’, providing that the tax shall be computed on the prevailing cost of a similar vehicle in Rajasthan on the day tax becomes due, reduced by a statutory age-based depreciation rebate and as such, the petitioners’ vehicle has rightly being seized and taxed, which is strictly in accordance with law and hence, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

9. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Ms. Anushree Agarwal, Mr. RB Sharma Ganthola, Mr. Vedant Sharma, Mr. Srijan Tiwar, Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Hariom Yadav, Mr. Tarun Dopahariya, Mr. Sandeep Singh Nirwan, Mr. Kapil Bardhar, Mr. Parikshit Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Deependra Yadav, Mr. MS Raghav and other counsels appearing for the respective petitioners would submit as under:

(i) That no tax can be levied or collected, except by authority of law, in absence of charging provision and therefore, levy of tax is liable to be quashed in view of the provisions contained in Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) That Section 4 of the Act of 1951 does not authorize the impugned levy on out-of-State non-transport vehicles in the absence of notification under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 and the notification dated 10.07.2024 does not satisfy the requirements of Section 4(1)(c) for non-transport private vehicles registered outside the State of Rajasthan.

(iii) That for non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Sections 8A, 13, 13A & 17 of the Act of 1951, the impugned demand and impounding of the vehicle are vitiated by breach of natural justice and absence of jurisdiction.

(iv) That Rule 28 read with Rule 27 of the Rules of 1951 grants complete exemption for the first 30 days and as such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the impugned action of the State is violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 301 of the Constitution of India as it constitutes impermissible double taxation.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents.

10. Mr. SS Naruka, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore appearing for the respondent-State would submit as under:

(i) That notification dated 10.07.2024 makes it clear that the rates of tax in respect of non-transport vehicles (Private Vehicles) have also been prescribed. Referring to provisions contained in proviso (iv) of the aforesaid notification, it has been contended that the notification clearly envisaged imposition of road tax on vehicles,which are registered in other States but are plied in the State of Rajasthan and once it is found that those private vehicles are brought into Rajasthan and used for a period exeeding 30 days, then the owner shall be required to pay tax, as notified for such vehicle in the State, as stated in Rule 28(1)(i) of the Rules of 1951. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Section 4(1)(b) of the Act of 1951 read with Rule 28 of the Rules of 1951 and notification dated 10.07.2024, makes it clear that the petitioner whose vehicle over stayed in the State of Rajasthan, would be liable to pay one time road tax.

(ii) That State is, therefore, justified in demanding tax for the vehicles being used in the State of Rajasthan and accordingly, all the writ petitions deserves to be dismissed.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

Question for consideration

12. The short question for consideration would be whether the State of Rajasthan is justified in impounding the vehicle of the petitioner herein and demanding tax in absence of notification under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 and whether notification dated 10.07.2024 satisfies requirement of the provisions of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 for non-transport private vehicles, registered outside the State of Rajasthan.

Article 265 of the Constitution of India

13. Article 265 of the Constitution of India enacts a fundamental constitutional mandate that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. In fiscal jurisprudence, "authority of law" requires not merely an administrative practice or executive understanding, but a valid legislative charge and a determinable rate or measure of tax prescribed in the manner authorised by statute. A taxing statute must clearly indicate: (i) the taxable event or subject; (ii) the person liable; and (iii) the rate or measure of tax. If the statute itself requires the rate to be prescribed by notification, no levy can be sustained in the absence of such notification. Where any of these components is missing, the levy fails for want of authority of law.

14. It is well settled principle rendered by their Lordship of the Supreme Court that Article 265 is not merely a procedural safeguard but a substantive limitation on State power: a tax levied without clear legislative authority is unconstitutional and void ab initio. In this regard the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mathuram Agrawal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[1], may be noticed herein, in which their Lordships have clearly held that the statute should clearly and unambiguously convey the three components of the tax law, i.e., the subject of the tax; the person who is liable to pay the tax; and the rate at which the tax is to be paid. Their Lordships further held that if there is any ambiguity regarding any of these ingredients in a taxation statute, then there is no tax in law.

15. Further in the matter of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla & Ors.[2], their Lordships of the Supreme Court reiterated that there is no room for intendment in fiscal legislation that a specific provision is indispensable, and that nothing is to be read or implied.

16. In the matter of Consumer Online Foundation & Ors. Vs. Union of India Ors.[3], their Lordships of the Supreme Court clearly held that levy without the prescribed rate or prescription in the manner required by law, offends Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Imposition of Tax under The Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951

17. Section 4 of the Act of 1951, which is the charging provision and creates three distinct categories of levy, states as under:

[4. Imposition of tax.- (1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act or by the Rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force, there shall be levied and collected on all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State,- [(a) a tax in respect of such vehicles which are not covered by clause (b), (c), (cc) and (d) at such rates as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette which shall not exceed Rs. 2000/- per thousand Kg. of Gross Vehicle Weight or part thereof per year for goods vehicles and Rs. 2000/- per seat per month for passenger vehicles of this State: Provided that where the rates are not specified, on quarterly, half yearly or monthly basis, by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette and if the tax is permissible to be paid quarterly, half yearly or monthly, the amount payable shall be equivalent to the one fourth, one half or one twelfth respectively of the annual rate of tax; [(b) a one time tax in the case of non transport vehicles and in case of such class of transport vehicles, as may be specified by notification in the Official Gazette, at such rates as may be specified by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette which shall not exceed 50% of the cost of the vehicle/chassis: Provided that on every transfer of ownership of non transport vehicles mentioned above, an additional one time tax shall be payable as such rates as may be specified by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette; ";] [(c) a tax in respect of motor vehicles registered outside the State and using roads in Rajasthan, at such rates, as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette which shall 6[ not exceed Rs.2000/- per day in case of passenger vehicles and shall not exceed Rs. 2000/- per thousand Kg. Gross Vehicle Weight] or part thereof for 30 days or part thereof in case of goods vehicles and shall not exceed Rs. 5000/-per thousand Kg. of Unladen Weight or part thereof for 30 days or part thereof in case of Construction Equipment Vehicles; (cc) a tax in respect of motor vehicles or motor vehicle chassis temporarily registered and passing through the State using roads in Rajasthan, at such rates, as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette which shall not exceed Rs. 5000/-;]

18. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that Section 4(1)(a) prescribes a periodic (annual/quarterly/half-yearly/monthly) tax on goods, goods vehicles and passenger vehicles of the State, at the rates notified by the State Government, whereas Clause (b) prescribes a one time tax on non-transport vehicles (and such class of transport vehicles as may be specified), at rates notified by the State Government, which shall not exceed 50% of the cost of the vehicle/chassis, and Clause (c) provides a tax in respect of motor vehicles registered outside the State and using roads in Rajasthan, at such rates, as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette.

19. On a plain reading of clause (b), it applies to non-transport vehicles of the State of Rajasthan, i.e., vehicles registered in Rajasthan and not to vehicles registered outside Rajasthan. The legislature has deliberately enacted a separate charging clause for out of State vehicles, i.e., clause (c), which must be invoked for any levy on such vehicles. Clause (c) itself requires that the tax shall be levied at such rates, as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette. The power to levy under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 is conditional upon the existence of a notification prescribing the rate. The statutory scheme enacted under section 4(1) is clear: clause (b) and clause (c) operate in distinct and mutually exclusively fields. Clause (b) of Section 4(1), which is the charging provision for Rajasthan-registered non-transport vehicles. To levy tax on an out-of-State vehicle, for which the specific charging provision is clause (c) and in the absence of a notification under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951, prescribing the rate of tax applicable to out-of-State non-transport private vehicles, the State of Rajasthan has no authority to levy any tax on such vehicles and such a demand is ultra vires the Act of 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder, i.e., the Rules of 1951.

20. In the matter of Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh etc[4], their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that no tax can be imposed by any bye-law or rule or regulation unless the statute under which the subordinate legislation is made specially authorises the imposition even if it is assumed that the power to tax can be delegated to the executive.

21. A seven Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.[5], reproduces Section 4 as the charging provision and makes clear that no vehicle shall be used or kept for use in Rajasthan unless tax at the appropriate rate specified in the statutory scheme is paid.

22. Rule 28 of the Rules of 1951 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 22 of the Act of 1951, may be noticed herein.

“28. Complete exemption from payment of the tax.- Motor vehicle of the following classes are totally exempt from liability to taxation:- (a) to (h)……… (i) Private vehicles (other than transport vehicles and construction equipment vehicles) registered outside Rajasthan, brought temporarily in Rajasthan and used or kept for use therein for a period not exceeding 30 days: As soon as such motor vehicle is brought into Rajasthan, the owner or the person in charge of the vehicle shall send an intimation to the taxation officer in form MTJ and if the vehicle is used for a period exceeding thirty days than the owner shall be required to pay tax as notified for such vehicle in the State. When such a motor vehicle is used or kept for use in Rajasthan for a period exceeding thirty days, the liability to tax in respect thereof shall commence on the day on which the motor vehicle was first brought into Rajasthan.”

23. A careful perusal of the Rule 28 (i) of the Rules of 1951 would show that the vehicles mentioned in Rule 28 (j) of the Rules of 1951 are totally exempted from liability of taxation, if the private vehicles registered outside the Rajasthan brought temporarily in Rajasthan and used or kept for use therein for a period not exceeding thirty days, subject to compliance of first Proviso to Rule 28(i) of the Rules of 1951. However, second Proviso to Rule 28(i) of the Rules of 1951, states that when such a motor vehicle is used or kept for use in Rajasthan for a period exceeding thirty days, the liability to tax in respect thereof shall commence on the day on which the motor vehicle was first brought into Rajasthan.

24. However, Rule 28 of the Rules of 1951 cannot independently create a tax liability unless the parent charging provision and rates are notified under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951. It is a well settled law that a rule cannot enlarge the scope of the main charging provision as the delegated legislation and executive directions may regulate procedure, but they cannot impose tax where the Act does not validly do so.

25. In the matter of M/s. Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.[6] their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond or conflict with the parent statutory charging provision.

Whether Notification dated 10.07.2024 satisfies the requirements of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 for non-transport private vehicles registered outside the State

26. The relevant portion of the Notification dated 10.07.2024 states as under:

“Government of Rajasthan Transport & Road Safety Department NOTIFICATION Jaipur, July 10, 2024 In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) and clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 4 read with section 3 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (Act No. 11 of 1951), and in supersession of this department's notification number F.6(179)Pari/Tax/Hqrs/2019-20/3 dated 10.07.2019, as amended from time to time, the State Government hereby, specifies, with immediate effect, motor vehicle tax payable on Passenger Vehicles registered in the State or registered in other State and plying on non-temporary permit or temporary permit as specified in column number 2 of the table given below, at the rates specified against each of them in column number 3 of the said table, namely………………”

27. The Notification dated 10.07.2024 essentially lays down the rates of tax in respect of cases covered under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act of 1951. Proviso (iv) to the Notification dated 10.07.2024 deals with a situation where those vehicles, which are already registered in or outside the State or in case of military disposal, on which one time tax was not payable earlier. In such cases, one time tax is required to be arrived at by reducing the amount of tax at the rate of 5% per financial year or part thereof upto five years from the date of registration. This cannot obliviate the statutory requirement of issuance of notification under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951, if the State intends to tax vehicles, which are being brought outside the State of the Rajasthan. Though to the extent of goods vehicle and passenger vehicle, notification under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 has been issued, in the absence of there being similar notification issued in respect of non transport private vehicles, the aforesaid proviso does not come to the aid of the State to serve as the authority to levy road tax on vehicles registered outside the State and using the road in the State of Rajasthan, which falls within the mischief of provisions contained in Rule 28 (1) (i) of the Rules of 1951 and as such, the Notification dated 10.07.2024 does not satisfy the requirements of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951.

Discussion and Analysis

28. Prior to adverting further qua the merits of the case, it is deemed essential to jot down that Rajasthan is the land of valour, vibrant traditions, magnificent forts, timeless architecture and unparalleled hospitality, has always welcomed the world with its cherished ethos of “Padharo Mahare Desh”. From the golden sands of the Thar to the grandeur of its palaces, from the legacy of Maharana Pratap to the warmth of its people, Rajasthan's identity is deeply rooted in its cultural heritage and the spirit of “Atithi Devo Bhava”. This timeless philosophy transcends geographical boundaries and reflects the broader constitutional vision of a united India, founded upon the principles of fraternity, freedom of movement and national integration. In an era where the nation aspires towards the progressive ideal of “One Nation, One Tax”, harmonisation of the tax regime and removal of unwarranted fiscal barriers assume particular significance, while the State undoubtedly possesses the legislative competence to impose taxes in accordance with law, such power must remain within the bounds of statutory authority and constitutional discipline. The spirit of Rajasthan's hospitality must, therefore, find its reflection not merely in its cultural proclamations but also in its governance, ensuring that every visitor, irrespective of the State of registration of their private vehicle, encounters the warmth of welcome rather than an impediment unsupported by law. After all, the true grandeur of Rajasthan lies not in the barriers it erects, but in the doors it opens.

29. Thus, our view can be precisely noted as follows:

"पधारो म्हारे देश —
यहाँ अतिथि का सत्कार होगा,
पर विधि के विरुद्ध
किसी कर का नहीं अधिकार होगा।”

30. From the aforesaid consideration, it is quite vivid that levy of tax on motor vehicles throughout the State of Rajasthan is governed by the provisions contained in the Act of 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. the Rules of 1951. Section 4 of the Act of 1951, which is the charging provision, provides for imposition of tax. Section 4(1)(c) provides, inter alia, that motor vehicles registered outside the State and using roads in the State of Rajasthan would be chargeable to road tax at such rates, as prescribed by the State Government in the Official Gazette. The provisions contained upper limits in respect of passenger vehicles and other vehicles. Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1951 deals with liability for payment of road tax as one-time tax in case of non-transport vehicles as well as transport vehicles, at the rates specified by the State Government by way of notification in the Official Gazette, which contains an upper limit which shall not exceed 50% of the cost of the vehicle/chassis and as such, as already held herein-above, provisions contained in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1951 deals with different contingencies.

31. In case of the vehicle from outside the State of Rajasthan, levy of tax would be at the rates specified in notification under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951. Therefore, in order to levy one-time road tax on vehicle registered outside the State and brought into the State of Rajasthan, an appropriate notification under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 is required to be issued. However, it is apparent from the record that the State Government has issued notification in exercise of powers in Clauses (a) and (c) in respect of goods vehicles and passenger vehicles, but the State Government has failed to bring on record any notification issued under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951, applicable in the case of non-transport vehicles like cars, which are meant for private use (excluding taxi used as passenger vehicle). In absence of notification prescribing rates of tax payable by those vehicle owners falling within the mischief of provisions contained in Rule 28(1)(i) of the Rules of 1951, levy of road tax would be unauthorized under the law.

32. As already observed herein-above, the Notification dated 10.07.2024 cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 in respect of non-transport vehicles, like cars and as such, the impugned levy, seizure and demand of tax are unconstitutional.

Non-compliance of Sections 8A, 13, 13A and 17 of the Act of 1951

33. Sections 8A of the Act of 1951 requires, (i) satisfaction recorded by the competent Taxation Officer; (ii) reasonable opportunity of being heard; (iii) computation of liability; (iv) recovery in accordance with law. Thus, Section 8A of the Act of 1951, requires satisfaction to be recorded by the competent authority for computation of tax after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

34. Section 13 and 13A of the Act of 1951, provides the exhaustive mechanism for recovery of the Tax, whereas Section 17 of the Act of 1951 confers a limited power to stop and seized a vehicle. Section 17(2), in particular operates only where a Taxation Officer or authorized person has a reason to believe that tax is due and unpaid.

35. As such, the case of the petitioner is that neither any opportunity of hearing was afforded, nor any speaking computation was served and even no proceedings under Sections 13 and 13A of the Act of 1951 were initiated and, therefore, the action of the respondents is bad in law.

36. Rule 28 of the Rules of 1951 provides that private non-transport vehicles registered outside Rajasthan and temporarily brought into and used or kept in Rajasthan for a period not exceeding 30 days are wholly exempt from tax. The exemption is self-operative and does not require any declaration or application by the vehicle owner.

37. Rule 28 of the Rules of 1951 further provides that where such a vehicle is used or kept in Rajasthan for more than 30 days, liability to pay tax arises only from the date of entry, at the rate of 1/12 of the annual rate, and it is contingent upon the owner intimating the Taxation Officer in Form MTJ. The scheme of Rule 28 of the Rules of 1951 thus contemplates: (a) compete exemption for the first 30 days; (b) liability beyond 30 days computed and 1/12 of the annual rate per month; and (c intimation by the owner in Form MTJ.

Conclusion and Relief

38. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that no notification under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 has been issued in respect of non-transport vehicles, which are meant for private use, excluding taxi used as passenger vehicle, and the Notification dated 10.07.2024 does not satisfy the requirements of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951 in respect of non-transport vehicles/private cars.

39. As such, the petitioner’s vehicle being non-transport vehicle, registered in Haryana and as the lifetime tax has been paid in the State of Haryana, the impugned challan dated 17.03.2025 and the letter dated 17.03.2025, issued by the respondent-authorities, in relation to the petitioner’s vehicle, being illegal, without jurisdiction and in absence of valid notification under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1951, are hereby quashed. The tax, if any, recovered from the petitioner(s) be refunded to them within a period of 30 days from the date of production of copy of this order.

40. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. As bunch of matters is decided by way of common order, the above-said judgment will have application on mutatis mutandis basis by the respondent-authorities.

41. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.

(SAMEER JAIN),J
(SANJAY K. AGRAWAL),CJ

Footnotes:
[1] (1999) 8 SCC 667
[2] (1992) 3 SCC 285
[3] (2011) 5 SCC 360
[4] 1970 (2) SCC 467
[5] 1962 SCC OnLine SC 21
[6] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1851