LexPRAHLAD SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 8 S.C.R. 926
A
PRAHLAD SINGH & ANR.
~
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3325 of 2009 Etc. Etc.)
B
MAY 6, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, V.S. SIRPURKAR AND ASOK
KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.)
Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles, Taxation Act, 1997:
c
s. 4 and First Schedule, Part D, Article I, item 7,
Explanation, and Article II - Road Tax - Imposition of tax -
55 seater Stage Carriage - Demand of additional tax at the
rate of Rs. 451- for every metric ton - Held: High Court was
D right in holding that if the vehicles were covered under more
"'
than one Articles of Part-D '>f the First Schedule to the Act,
then the highest rate mentioned under either of the Articles
would be payable - Article II of Part-D of the First Schedule
operates when goods were carried and it does apply to
E passengers' luggage.
The appellants filed writ petitions before the High
Court challenging vires of Article II of Part D of the First
k
Schedule to the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation
\
Act, 1997 and the order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the
F
Transport Commissioner. The case of the petitioners was
that they were Stage Carriage Operators operating their
buses under the permanent Stage Carriage permit
granted to them and they had paid road tax u/s 4 of the
United Provinces Motor Vehicles Act, 1935. It was
G submitted that with the coming into force of the 1997 Act,
the demand for additional tax at the rate of Rs. 45/- for
every metric ton in terms of Article II of Part D of the First
Schedule to the Act was not applicable to them and they
were required to pay in terms of Article I, Item 7, as they
H
926
PRAHLAD SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 927
\
were carrying more than 35 passengers. The High Court A
) -
dismissed the writ petitions holding that if the vehicles
of the petitioners were covered under more than one
Articles of Part D of the First Schedule to the Act, then
the highest rate mentioned under eUher of the Articles
would be payable. Aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed the B
appeals.
j
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petitions, the
Court
HELD: Because of the Explanation to Item 7 of c
Article I of the Part D of First Schedule to the U.P. Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, the view expressed by the
High Court is the correct one. Article II of Part D of the
First Schedule to Act operates when goods were carried
-~
and it does apply to passengers' luggage. [Para 9 and 12] D
[930-A; 933-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3325 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.8.2000 of the High E
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
-'.
1157 of 2000.
;
WITH
C.A. No. 3326/2009, 3327/2009, 3328/2009, 3329/2009,
F
3330/2009, 3331-3332/2009 W.P.(C) No. 40/2007, 39/2007.
Rani Chhabra, Pradeep Misra, Sooraj Singh and Daleep
Dhyani for the Appellant.
G
.... -+
S.K. Dwivedi, AAG, R.K. Gupta, Rajiv Dubey, Kamlendra
Mishra and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the.Court was delivered by
H
\
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A
DR. ARIJTI PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
' ..
2. Challenge in these appeals is to judgment of a Division
..
Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Several Petitions were
disposed of by a common judgment and the writ petitions were
B dismissed. The writ petitioners had questioned the vires of
Article II of Part D of the First Schedule of the Uttar Pradesh
Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as
t
the 'Taxation Act'). Order dated 30.10.2000 passed by the
Transport Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow was also questioned.
c
The High Court noted that in the meeting held on 20.4.1999
decision was taken by the Transport Commissioner not to
realize the Additional Tax at the rate of Rs.45/- per metric ton
as provided under Article II of Part D of the First Schedule of
the Taxation Act. By order dated 30.10.2000 the Transport
Commissioner had informed all his subordinate authorities that
D the decision had since been revoked and tax in accordance
-{.
with.law was to be realise<...
3. According to the writ petitioners they were Stage
Carriage Operators, they have own buses and operate them
E on the strength of permanent Stage Carriage Permit granted
in their favour by the Regional Transport Authority. Prior to the
commencement of the Taxation Act, taxes were realised from
the transport operators under the provisions of different
).
eExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.