Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Diesel Loco Modernization Works vs State Of Punjab & Others on 13 October, 2010

Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel

Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH.

                                          C.W.P. No.17886 of 2010
                                        Date of decision: 13.10.2010

Diesel Loco Modernization Works.
                                                      -----Petitioner.
                               Vs.
State of Punjab & others.
                                                   -----Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

Present:-   Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
                  ---


ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. This petition seeks direction against charging of registration fee, road tax etc. on the official vehicles of the petitioner, which are property of Central Government.

2. Case of the petitioner is that it is production unit of Ministry of Railways. Under Article 285 of the Constitution, property of the Central Government is exempt from tax and vehicles of the petitioner are to be granted exemption from tax. The petitioner made application dated 7.4.2008 to the District Transport Officer, opposing applicability of levy of tax under the provisions of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 on the basis of judgment of this Court dated 13.9.1989 in CWP CWP No.17886 of 2010 2 No.3577 of 1979 The Union of India v. The State of Punjab & others, but no decision was being taken thereon by respondent No.4.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to respondent No.4 taking a decision on the claim of the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, we direct respondent No.4 to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The petition is disposed of.


                                             (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                     JUDGE


October 13, 2010                             ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL )
ashwani                                              JUDGE