Flagrant Disregard For Court Proceedings: Karnataka High Court Quashes RTO’s Seizure And Registration Cancellation Order Of Mercedes-AMG G63
The Bench noted that coercive action taken without statutory authority and during ongoing judicial proceedings cannot be sustained in law.
The Karnataka High Court while condemning the Regional Transport Officer’s (RTO) order, has quashed the seizure and registration cancellation of a luxury Mercedes-AMG G63 alleging motor vehicle tax evasion, observing that coercive action taken without statutory authority and during ongoing judicial proceedings cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the Bench directed restoration of registration and release of the vehicle to the petitioner.
Pertinently, the transport authorities had claimed that the high-end vehicle, originally classified as a Mercedes-Benz BENZ-GL-63-AMG, had later been described in certain documents as a GLA 200 GDI, a significantly lower-priced model, allegedly to reduce tax liability. Based on this alleged discrepancy in the vehicle’s model classification and valuation, the authorities seized the vehicle and proceeded to cancel its registration.
Justice Jyoti M observed, “It is shocking to note that, despite the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, the respondent authorities have chosen to cancel the vehicle’s registration. Such action, prima facie, appears to be arbitrary and is liable to be deprecated. I may venture to say that the act on the part of the Government, in proceeding to cancel the registration during the pendency of the writ petition, deserves to be condemned. This Court finds such conduct on the part of the respondent authorities to be highly improper. Once this Court seizes of the matter and is pending adjudication, any precipitative action taken by the authorities affecting the subject matter of the writ petition is wholly unwarranted. This Court is constrained to observe that the cancellation of the vehicle registration during the pendency of the Writ Petition is legally untenable and cannot be sustained, as the subject matter is sub judice. The action taken by the Government appears to be a flagrant disregard for Court proceedings, taking the law into its own hands, and consequently, the order deserves to be set aside”.
Advocate H. Pavan Chandra Shetty appeared for the petitioner and V.G. Bhanuprakash, AAG appeared for the respondent.
The writ petition concerned a Mercedes-AMG G63 vehicle originally purchased for approximately ₹1.96 crore with financial assistance from HDFC Bank Ltd..
The vehicle was later sold without the bank’s knowledge, following which the Delhi Police Crime Branch seized it during investigation into offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and conspiracy.
After proceedings before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, possession of the vehicle was restored to the bank. The petitioner subsequently purchased the vehicle through a One-Time Settlement by paying ₹62.5 lakh, obtained a No Objection Certificate from the bank, and secured registration in Karnataka as KA-20-MH-0888 on January 18, 2025.
However, on June 16, 2025, transport authorities seized the vehicle while it was parked at a residence in Mysuru, alleging tax evasion and fabrication of documents by misrepresenting the vehicle model to reduce tax liability.
The State Government contended that the vehicle was originally classified as a high-value Mercedes-Benz BENZ-GL-63-AMG, but later documents described it as a lower-priced GLA 200 GDI. Further, that such alteration allegedly enabled evasion of approximately ₹78 lakh in motor vehicle tax and a Special Checking Squad had been constituted to inspect luxury vehicles suspected of tax fraud. Authorities justified seizure under enforcement measures initiated by the Transport Department.
Examining the statutory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, the Court held that coercive powers such as seizure can only be exercised by Motor Vehicles Department officers not below the rank of Inspector, or Police officers not below the rank of Inspector.
“This is a fascinating case of a Mercedes-Benz that completed an extensive round trip from Karnataka to Himachal Pradesh and back. Considering the facts presented regarding the petitioner’s car purchase…”, it remarked.
On noting that the vehicle had been seized by an officer assigned merely to submit an inspection report as part of a special squad, therefore The Court found that the official memorandum did not confer independent seizure powers and the officer exceeded his mandate. Furthermore, it noted that a statutory authority cannot be assumed merely because an officer participates in an inspection team.
“Before parting with the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that officials of the RTO Department are not merely enforcers of statutory provisions but are representatives of the State in their dealings with citizens. Their conduct has a direct bearing on public confidence in governance. They are, therefore, expected to act with fairness, transparency, empathy, and a high sense of public duty”, it observed.
“It is a settled principle of law that when a statute confers a specific power upon a designated class of officers, the same cannot be exercised by any other person who is not expressly authorised. Any action taken in violation of such statutory limitation is liable to be treated as illegal and unsustainable in law. This Court holds that the seizure of the motor vehicle by the concerned officer was without lawful authority. Therefore, it is declared illegal. Appropriate consequential relief regarding the vehicle shall follow in accordance with the law”, the Court said.
Cause Title: Neeraj Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Karnataka & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:16461]
Appearances:
Petitioner: H. Pavan Chandra Shetty, Advocate.
Respondent: V.G. Bhanuprakash, AAG.