An out-of-state vehicle cannot be seized for tax default without the required statutory inquiry.

The petitioner’s vehicle, registered in Pondicherry as PY-05-P-6777, was seized on 18 September 2026 while travelling from Mudhol to Lokapur in Karnataka.

The petitioner challenged the seizure and sought release of the vehicle, contending that the authorities had not established the basis or amount of any Karnataka tax liability.

On an earlier hearing, the Court asked the State to explain the reason for seizure; the State’s counsel later submitted that it was seized because it was registered in Pondicherry in 2023 and was found plying in Karnataka.

1. Whether the vehicle’s registration in another State and its presence on a road in Karnataka, without material establishing a statutory violation or unpaid tax, justified its seizure under Section 11A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957.

2. Whether the seizure proceedings could stand when no inquiry under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or Section 11A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, was shown to have been held before seizure.

Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for assignment of a new registration mark where a vehicle registered in one State has been kept in another State for more than twelve months, and sets out the application requirements.

Section 11A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, authorises an empowered officer to seize and detain a vehicle where tax due in respect of it has not been paid within the prescribed period; subsection (2) provides for recovery by sale, subject to notice and consideration of objections, if the tax remains unpaid after seizure.

The Court applied these provisions on the basis that seizure required a statutory basis and that the relevant circumstances had not been established on the record.

The State’s stated reason for seizure was that the vehicle was registered in Pondicherry and had been found plying in Karnataka. The Court found that the State had placed no material showing a violation of Section 47 or establishing the basis for seizure under Section 11A; nor was any inquiry under those provisions shown to have preceded the seizure.

It therefore held that the impugned investigation report could not stand, while leaving the authorities at liberty to conduct the contemplated inquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

It directed the authorities to release the vehicle to the petitioner forthwith and directed the learned AGA to communicate the order to the concerned authority.