Bombay High Court
Manjeetsingh S/O. Dilipsingh Gulati vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 19 July, 2019
Author: R.K. Deshpande
Bench: R.K. Deshpande, Vinay Joshi
1
wp1793.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.1793 of 2016
Manjeetsingh s/o Dilipsingh Gulati,
Aged about 43 years,
Occupation-Business,
Resident of Bajaj Ward, Gondia,
Maharashtra. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary to Home
Department (Transport), Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400032.
2. Transport Commissioner of the
State of Maharashtra,
Administrative Building,
3rd and 4th Floor,
Dr. Ambedkar Udyan, Government
Colony, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400051.
3. Secretary, State Transport Authority,
Maharashtra State,
Mumbai.
4. State of Madhya Pradesh,
through the Ministry of Transport,
Mantralaya, Bhopal.
5. State Transport Authority of Madhya
Pradesh, Gwalior, through its
Secretary.
6. Tax Officer and Regional Transport
Office, Nagpur. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 22/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 23:40:04 :::
2
wp1793.16.odt
Shri N.C. Phadnis, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 & 6.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Vinay Joshi, JJ.
Dated : 19th July, 2019.
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. Heard the matter finally by the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. It is not disputed that the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 11th March, 2016 in Writ Petition No.4098/2014 (Royal Carrier and Courier Private Limited .vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) along with other connected matters. The paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the said decision being relevant reproduced below :
"11. For the reasons recorded above, writ petitions deserve to be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed. Respondents have no authority in law to levy and demand passenger tax at the rate of 70% of the load factor of seating capacity of passenger transport vehicle since it is contrary to provisions of the Act of 1958, as well as impermissible for the reasons set out above. Respondents - State authorities shall not demand passenger tax on computations of 70% of load factor of the seating capacity of the passenger transport vehicle and shall levy and collect ::: Uploaded on - 22/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 23:40:04 ::: 3 wp1793.16.odt tax strictly in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1958.
12. Respective counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, state that in terms of the directions issued by this Court during the pendency of these petitions, petitioners continued to deposit 50% of the amount as claimed from them and, the amount so paid shall be appropriated by the State towards past liability in respect of demand of tax. Petitioners do not have any specific objection for appropriation of the amount which they have deposited during the pendency of the petitions towards tax and, in future, levy and recovery of tax shall be in accordance with the Act of 1958. State Government shall be entitled to the amount deposited / to be deposited in view of interim orders which were passed during pendency of these petitions and to take further appropriate decisions in respect of recovery of past liability / difference of the petitioners as per rules relied on by the petitioners themselves and referred above. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
3. Hence, Rule is made absolute in terms of paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the decision, which are reproduced above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Vinay Joshi, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)
Gulande
::: Uploaded on - 22/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 23:40:04 :::