MAHAKOSHAL TOURIST, NAPIER TOWN AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 03-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, RUMA PAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1 
• ' 
MAHAKOSHAL TOURIST, NAPIER TOWN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
B 
Madhya Pradesh Moto1J1an Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991: ss. 3, 8 and 
14-Motor Vehicles Tax -Rejimd of tax for the period a vehicle not used-
Motor operators holding All-India Tourists permits-Their writ petitions C 
challenging constitutional validity of the Act on the ground that for ascertaining 
tax liability and refunding the tax, there is no provision in the Act-Dismissed 
by High Court-Held, a reading ofss. 3, 8 and 14 of the Act shows that there 
are adequate provisions in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder for 
ascertaining the liability, assessment and refund of tax leviable under the 
Act-These provisions equally apply to opemtors holding All-India Tourist D 
permits. 
Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and Ors. v. Union of India and 
Ors., (1993) M.P.L.J. 992, upheld 
E 
Ss. 3 and 14-Held, the expression 'used' or 'kept for use' occurring in 
s. 3 means either actual use of the vehicle or keeping the vehicle available for 
use in the State-While plying outside the State in connection with a contract, 
a vehicle will, nonetheless, be within the import of 'kept for use' in the State 
-Non-use of a vehicle in the State is by itself not enough-Fact of non use has 
to be declared Co the conc(!rned authority to avoid tax liability-The motor F 
operators herein had not given any written intimation of non-use of vehicle as 
to avail the benefit of s. 14 read with Rules I 2 to 14-Motoryan Karadhan 
Rules, 1998-Rules I 2 to 14. 
Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Ors., G 
[1990] 3 sec 619, relied on 
Boiani Ores Limited v. State of Orissa, [1974[ 2 SCC 777, referred to 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5560 of 2002. 
H 
93 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.1994 of the High Comt of 
Madhya Pradesh in MP.3565 of 1992. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 5561, 5562-70 of 2002. W.P.(C) No. 281/1994, 
B C.A.No. 2176/1993 and SLP (C) No. 6483/1995. Civil Appeal Nos. 5560, 
5561 and 5562-5570 of 2002. 
M.L. Lahoty, P.K. Sharma, A.P. Dhamija, Sushi! Kumar Jain, Ms. 
Pratibha Jain and Pramod Swarup (NIP) S.K. Mehta (N/P) for the Appellant. 
C 
Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri, Exparte for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
Leave is granted. 
D 
This batch of appeals arises from the common judgment and order of 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) passed on February 9, 
1994 in various writ petitions filed by bus operators holding All-India Tourist 
permits. 
The State of Madhya Pradesh passed the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan 
E Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 [for short, 'Act 25 of 1991 ']under Entry 57 of 
List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The said Act was 
subsequently amended by Act 26 of 1991. Act 25 of 1991, thus amended, 
was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, inter alia, on the 
ground of lack of legislative competence. The High Court repelled the 
F contention and dismissed the writ petition (Misc. Petition No. 39 of 1992) on · 
!st October, 1992. Subsequently, Act 25 of 1991 was again amended by Act 
10 of 1993, which was also questioned but it was upheld by the High Cou1t 
in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 
(Misc. Petition No. 1646of1993), reported in 1993 M.P.L.J. 992. The scope 
G of challenge in this batch of writ petitions is with regard to the absence of 
a machinery for assessment of tax for the vehicles plying on the basis of All-
India Tourist Permit in the State of Madhya Pradesh and denying them refund 
of tax for the period they were not used or kept for use in the State of 
Madhya Pradesh. 
H 
Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the 
MAHAKOSHAL TOURIST v. STATE 
95 
civil appeal (arising out ofS.L.P. (C) No. 4771of1994), has contended that A 
though the Act was upheld by the High Court. it was observed that the State 
should provide procedure for assessment of tax liability, already created. by 
way of filing return, assessment and payment for tax. What the learned counsel 
submits is that for the purpose of ascertaining the tax liability and refunding 
the tax. there is no provision in Act 25 of 1991 and the Madhya Pradesh B 
Motoryan Karadhan Rules, 1991 (for short, .. the M.P. Rules") as such the 
provisions of the Ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.