In Brief
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd, a financier, took possession of a transport vehicle after the borrower defaulted on a loan. The financier contended it was not liable for motor vehicle tax under the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, since the vehicle was not in use. The Supreme Court held that a financier in possession under a hire-purchase agreement becomes the owner and must pay tax in advance before the vehicle is used. The statute mandates advance payment; liability does not depend on actual use. The only relief available is through refund (if non-used for one month and documents surrendered) or exemption (if documents surrendered before tax becomes due). The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[{"raw_citation": "(1999) 9 SCC 1", "case_name": "State of Maharashtra v. Sundaram Finance", "cited_year": "1999", "paragraph": "4.5", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "(1976) 2 SCC 942 : 1976 (2) SCR 80", "case_name": "Jagir Singh v. State of Bihar", "cited_year": "1976", "paragraph": "5.5", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "Special Civil Application No.5788 of 2012 (Gujarat High Court, 25.01.2017)", "case_name": "Abdul Samad Abdul Hamid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat", "cited_year": "2017", "paragraph": "5.5, 11.1", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "An identical question came to be considered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Abdul Samad Abdul Hamid Shaikh (supra), where in paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4, it is observed and held as under..."}]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.