TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD versus THE SALES TAX OFFICER & REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, POONA AND ANR.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 22-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 57 
TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. 
v. 
THE SALES TAX OFFICER & REGIONAL TRANSPORT 
OFFICER, POONA AND ANR. 
November 22, 1978 
JP. N. BtiAGWATl, R. S. SARKAR!.<\ AND S. MURIAZA FAZAL Au, JJ.J 
Bon1bay ft.folor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers) Act, 1958, Section 2(1), 
·2(7) arzd 3 real/. with Prea111ble-Whether transport service registered as a 
'pril:ale service reliicle' provlding exclusively transport service to employees 
.of tht Offll~r conzpany a public serrice )'e/dcle, so as to be exigibfe to passenger 
A 
B 
tax under the Bonrbay Act, 1958. 
C 
The appellants are a C.Ompany registered under the.i Con1pa1lies ."-ct, 1913 
.and provide transport facilities to their ~n1ployces at a nominal 
rate 
from 
-certain pick-up places to their factori~s at Pimpri and Chinchvad in district 
·Pone (Maharashtra) in their transport vehicle registered as "private service 
"Vehicle" within the meaning of the Bon1bay Motor Vehicles Rules 1959. The 
Bombay High Court held that the transport vehicle provided to the employees 
D 
'by the company \vould be a public service Yehiclc and therefore, the respon· 
<lents sought to levy a tax on phssengers under the charging section 3 of the 
Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers) Act, 1958. A challenge 
to the said levy having been rejected by the Comn1issioner 
of Pune 
t11c 
appeJJants obtninf'd special leave of this Court. 
Aflowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : J. The prell·mblc to the Bon1bay Motor Vehicles (Taxation on 
Passengers) Act. 1958 clearly reveals that the dominant object of_ the Act 
was to impose tax on certain classes of 
public st!rvice vehicles. In other 
\vords, the Preamble indicates that vehicles 'f.lbich could not be 
termed 
as 
public service vehicles fell beyond the ambit of the taxing provisic)ns of the 
Act. 
[o.19G-Hl 
2. Though the Act and Rules n1ade thereunder do not define the 
term 
"public service vehicle", it is clear the.t, from the Preamble of the Act that 
·the tax can be 'levied only on passengers who are carried by a stage carriage 
\vhich is of the nature of Public Service \'chicle. 
[361A-BJ 
E 
F 
3. Section 3 of the Act which authorises the levy of tax on all passengers 
carried by road in stage carri11<ges contains two essential ingredients (1) that 
G 
the trart'iport concerned must carry passengers by road, and (2) that such 
passengers mu.st 'he carried in stage carriages, that is to say, as defined 
in 
·section 2(7) of the Act, passengers n1ust be carried for hire or reward at 
separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for 
the 
"-'hole 
jotnncy or for stages of the journey. 
(360F·G] 
4. A combined reading of section 2 (1) wRich defines 
'passenger• 
and 
sectioa 2(7) which defines 'stage carriage' of the Act clear1y indicates that 
H 
the tax would 'be Ieviable -only if the {'.'11.Ssengers are carried on 
a 
public 
· <;Cn·lce vehicle. 
[361A~ 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
5. The word 'Public' has got a well known connotation· and 
means a 
carriage to which any member of the public can have free access on pay-
ment of the usual charges. It cannot by any process of reasoning or stretch 
of imagination be deemed to include employees of a private company who 
are given facilities not as members of the public but as holding a 
special 
status, na1nely, the employees 
of 
that 
company. Thus, qua 
public 
the 
employees form a separate chlss and 
cannot be said to be public as contem-
B 
plated by rule 2(i). [361-C] 
c 
D 
6. In the present case :-
(a) The tr<tnsport service \Vhich \\as re,gistered as 
~" pri·vatc sei"vice vehicle 
falls squarely within the ambit of the definition of ·'private vehicle 
service" 
in the llon1bay ~1otor Vehicles Rules. 1959. 
l361E1 
(b) The transport provided to the employees of the company was reserved 
for them only and no other member of the public even if he wanted to pay 
full charges could be carried on the said 
vehicle. 
Jn 
these 
circumstances, 
therefore, it cannot be said that the transport vehicle provided to the em· 
ployees by the appellants could be a public service vehicle in any sense of 
the term. 
Such a transport vehicle, being not a public service vehicle within 
the meaning of the provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, the view 
taken by the Bombay High Court is clearly erroneous. [361F·G, 3628] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 204-226 of 
1978. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Order dated 29-11-1977

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.