HC Bars 9% Vehicle Tax, But Alleged Defiance by RTO Kashmir Raises Rule-of-Law Concerns

||Black and White Digital News ||

||Parvinder Singh December 22,2025||

SRINAGAR: The authority of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has come under sharp focus after allegations emerged that the Regional Transport Office (RTO) Kashmir continues to levy a 9 per cent token or lifetime tax on vehicles brought from outside the Union Territory for re-registration, despite a clear judicial ban on the practice.

The controversy stems from a High Court judgment dated 9 August 2024 in the case Ishfaq Ahmad Tramboo vs Transport Department, delivered by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, which categorically held that such a tax demand is illegal and unsustainable in law.

The Judgment:

In its ruling, the High Court clarified that vehicles imported into Jammu & Kashmir from other States or Union Territories for re-registration cannot be subjected to a fresh 9 per cent token or lifetime tax. The court’s decision was intended to end a long-standing dispute between vehicle owners and transport authorities over re-registration charges.

Legal experts note that the judgment was explicit, unambiguous, and binding on all authorities under the Transport Department.

Allegations of Non-Compliance:

Despite the ruling, vehicle owners and transport intermediaries allege that RTO offices in Kashmir continue to demand the same tax, effectively compelling applicants to pay in order to avoid delays in re-registration.

Several affected citizens claim they were either not informed of the High Court order or were told that “no new instructions” had been issued by higher authorities. This has raised serious questions about whether the judgment has been formally implemented at the departmental level.

Administrative Accountability:

The alleged non-compliance has placed the Transport Department’s leadership under scrutiny. Governance experts point out that implementation of court orders is a constitutional obligation, and failure to do so reflects systemic administrative lapses rather than isolated errors at the field level.

So far, the department has not issued a publicly accessible clarification or circular confirming the enforcement of the High Court’s directions, adding to the uncertainty faced by citizens.

Possible Legal Consequences:

Senior advocates warn that continued violation of a High Court judgment may amount to contempt of court, a serious legal offence. Affected individuals, they say, may approach the court seeking contempt proceedings, refunds of illegally collected tax, or further directions to ensure compliance.

“Courts do not merely issue advisory opinions. Their orders are enforceable and binding on the executive,” a legal expert observed.

Impact on Citizens:

The issue has had a direct financial impact on ordinary vehicle owners, including government employees on transfer, students, and private individuals relocating to Jammu & Kashmir. Many report paying significant amounts under protest due to the lack of an effective grievance redressal mechanism.

Larger Governance Issue:

Beyond the immediate tax dispute, the episode has sparked a broader debate on the rule of law and institutional accountability.

Observers argue that if judicial orders remain unenforced at the ground level, public confidence in governance and justice delivery is seriously undermined.

Awaiting Official Response:

As of now, there has been no formal response from the Transport Department addressing the allegations. Whether corrective steps will be taken, or whether citizens will be forced to return to court, remains to be seen.

For many, the issue boils down to a fundamental question:

Are High Court orders binding in practice—or only on paper?