After Disabled Man’s Road-Tax Claim Was Rejected, Madras HC Directs Commissioner to Consider Exemption for Disabled People’s Unadapted Cars

The petitioner, a person with disability, sought exemption from road tax for a Toyota Innova Crysta and challenged the Regional Transport Officer’s order dated 18 September 2026 rejecting that request.

The petitioner relied on Ministry of Road Transport and Highways communications concerning vehicles with automatic gears and on prior court decisions.

The respondents maintained that the exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 3352, dated 29 December 1976, was confined to vehicles specially designed or adapted for persons with disabilities, while noting a 12 March 2025 clarification concerning adapted vehicles used for their benefit.

Section 41(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 places an obligation on the appropriate Government to develop schemes and programmes promoting the personal mobility of persons with disabilities, including through incentives, concessions, vehicle retrofitting and mobility assistance.

Under Sections 3 and 20 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State are taxable, but the Government may, by notification and subject to conditions, exempt or reduce tax for a person or class of persons or in respect of a vehicle or class of vehicles.

The Court held that Section 20 itself does not restrict exemption to adapted vehicles; that restriction arose from the terms of the existing exemption notification.

The Court also identified the Ministry of Heavy Industries’ former GST-concession conditions—including vehicle specifications, eligibility documentation and a five-year restriction on disposal—as possible guidelines for reconsidering the exemption notification, not as binding rules governing this claim.

The Court considered that the existing notification’s restriction to specially designed or adapted vehicles could guard against misuse, including use of an exempt vehicle by persons without disabilities or its early transfer.

But the statutory power under Section 20 is broad, and Section 41(2) supports measures that promote personal mobility through concessions.

The Court therefore did not itself extend the existing exemption to unadapted vehicles or grant the petitioner immediate tax relief. Instead, it directed the Transport Commissioner to consider a fresh notification, taking account of the Court’s observations and the cited GST-concession conditions as possible safeguards.

If the fresh notification extends the exemption to unadapted vehicles, the petitioner may reapply; the Regional Transport Officer must decide that application within one month, and the impugned order will not prevent reconsideration.

The petitioner’s temporary registration certificate was extended until the fresh application is decided.