news details |
|
|
| Motor Vehicle Dealers demand withdrawal of SRO 492 | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 2: An emergency meeting of The J&K Motor Vehicle Dealer Association was held today wherein the recent promulgation of SRO 492 dt.01-08-2019 pertaining to steep hike in registration charges of Motor vehicles from the current fixed amount basis the category of the Motor vehicle to 9% of the value of the Motor Vehicle was discussed.
Pradeep Jain, General Secretary of the Association said, "The whole dealer fraternity of J&K has been taken aback by this order since the present administrative dispensation has not sought any representation from the key stake holders."
The present SRO is a double whammy for the whole dealer fraternity since the whole Motor vehicle business is bearing the onslaught of slowdown blues.
Davinder Batra, President of the Association added that the Motor Vehicle business is one of the largest contributors of revenue to the state exchequer by way of GST and the present statutory order would further add to the woes of the Motor Vehicle business which already is on the downward slide and growth.
The association wants their concerns to be addressed by the Governor of the state with respect to certain crucial and critical parameters affecting the business community, the buyers and eventually the government. Few important points were raised by the association which stated that the states like Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and Delhi still boast of registration rates lower that the new rate structure of J&K. The state of Himachal levies a max tax rate of 3% ad-valorem while that of Punjab is ranged between 6% to 8% ad-valorem. In Haryana, the tax rate ranges from 5 % to 8%.
Besides, the SRO has not clarified the qualifying amount for calculating the tax since the value of the Motor Vehicle has the GST component coupled with cess from a minimum of 28% to maximum of 50% which makes the total value of the Motor vehicle as the qualifying amount and it will lead to cascading effect of taxation.
The members further suggested that the implementation of these notifications should be deferred and brought into effect at par with that of the neighboring states. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
