STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus NURPUR PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS UNION AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 06-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
B 
c 
v. 
NURPUR PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS UNION 
AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
OCTOBER 6, 1999 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE, D.P. 
MOHAPATRA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.) 
Taxation : 
Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955--Ss.3 
and, proviso to 4 (as amendedrPassengers tax-Levy of-Mode of pay-
ment-Lump sum collection of tax by taking into consideration the registered 
capacity of the vehicle and the distance travelled or to be travelled-Validity 
of-Held, tax can be levied with regard to all fares in respect of all passengers 
D carried-No hypothetical assumption can be made regarding number of pas-
sengers carried-Amended proviso to S.4 is beyond the scope of the 
Act-Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Rules, 1957-Rule 
9. 
E 
Doctrines : 
Doctrine of prospective over-rulin15Applicability of-Held, once the 
taxing provision is held invalid, the collections made thereunder also stands 
invalidated-Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955. 
F 
Respondent-bus operators challenged the amended proviso to S. 4 
of the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 and 
the Rules framed thereunder. Under the amended proviso to S. 4 of the 
Act, the State Government may assess the tax at lump sum taking into 
consideration the registered capacity of the vehicle and the distance 
G travelled or to be travelled by such vehicle. High Court held that the said 
amendment was inyalid. However, High Court by applying the doctrine 
of prospective over-ruling held that the tax which had already been col-
lected, will not stand invalidated. Hence, the present appeals. 
Dismissing the Revenue's appeal and allowing that of Assessees', 
H the Court 
· 
430 
STATE v. NURPUR PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS UNION 
431 
HELD : 1.1. Amendment of Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh A 
Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 by the inclusion of the proviso 
is beyond the scope of the said Act. It is, therefore, unnecessary to con· 
sider Rule 9, as amended, whose terms also, in fact, leave the matter in 
no doubt. However, the State may make assessments of passengers tax as 
provided for in S. 3 of the Act. [ 433-G-H] 
1.2. It is plain from Section 3 of the Act, that the levy of the tax is 
on "all fares ..... in respect of all passengers carried .......... ". However, the 
proviso to Section 4 takes into account for the purpose of assessment of 
the lump sum tax only "the registered capacity of the vehicle and the 
B 
distance· travelled or to be travelled ......... ". It takes no account of "all C 
fares...... in respect of all passengers carried ..... ", and . it makes it 
obligatory for the operator to pay such lump sum tax. There can be no 
generalisation of tax that can be levied under S. 3 of the Act. It can be 
levied with due regard to all fares in respect of all passengers carried by 
the particular operator. No hypothetical assumption can be made about 
how many passengers an operator has carried. [433-D; E; F; G] 
D 
Mis. Sainik Motors, Jodhpur and Ors. v. 171e State of Rajasthan, 
[1962] 1 SCR 517, referred to. 
2. Once the High Court came to the conclusion, rightly, that the 
concerned provisions were invalid, it was obliged to so declare and, con· 
sequently, the collections made thereunder stood invalidated. Thus, .the 
direction of the High Court insofar as it relates to prospective over-ruling 
is set aside. [434-C; 434-D] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6466· 
p 
6476 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.10.92 of the Himachal 
Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 664, 744/91, 754/91, 225, 229, 230, 371, 
429, 448, 704 and 677 of 1992. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 6477 and 6480 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.10.92 of the Himachal 
G 
Pradesh High Court in C.W.P. No. 371 and 229 of 1992. 
H 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
N.C. Kochhar, Naresh K. Sharma, Uma Dutta, Ashok Kr. Sharma 
and Pradeep Kumar Bakshi for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHARUCHA, J. Civil Appeal Nos. 6466-6476 of 1995 : 
B 
Under challenge by the State of Himachal Pradesh is the judgment 
of a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh delivered on 
writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge 
amendments to the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation 
Act, 1955 and the Rules framed thereunder. The High Court a!Jowed the 
C writ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.