Punjab-Haryana High Court
United Motors Company Talwandi Saboo ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 April, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1996)114PLR151
Author: T.H.B. Chalapathi
Bench: T.H.B. Chalapathi
JUDGMENT T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the circular dated August 30, 1993, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport to all the Transport Secretaries of the State Government/Union Territory Administrations.
2. The petitioner is a a partnership firm engaged in transport business in plying tourist transport vehicles on the strength of permits and authorisation issued by the competent authority from time to time. In order to ply a passenger transport vehicles, the owner of the transport vehicle has to obtain a permit from the competent authority to those States where he wishes to ply the vehicle apart from his own State.
Sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') provides for issuance of permit and Sub-section (11) provides for conditions for issuance of permit granted under Section 9. Sub-section 14-B empowers the Central Government to frame rules providing for payment of taxes and fees payable for the issue of permit and such other matters as the appropriate authority shall consider proper. Explanation (b) to Sub-section (14) of Section 88 defines the "authorisation fee" which means the annual fee not exceeding Rs. 1000/- which may be charged by the appropriate authority of a State to enable a motor vehicle covered by the permit referred to in Sub-section (9) and (12), to be used in other States subject to the payment of taxes or fees, if any, levied by the States concerned. Thus, it is clear that whenever any transport vehicle is sought to be plied in the State Transport Authority where the transport operator wishes to ply his vehicle. According to the petitioner, State of Haryana was charging a sum of Rs. 2255/- per vehicle as passenger tax and Rs. 288/- as road tax for each bus entering the State of Haryana even though the vehicle had got a national tourist permit. As different States have adopted different rates of tax and fee for plying the vehicles, a meeting of the Transport Secretaries of the Tourism Department was held in January, 1992, and in that meeting the State Governments had agreed to charge the composite fee from the permit holders in other States when the vehicles of their States are plied in other States. According to the consensus arrived at that meeting the rates of taxes to be charged are as follows :-
a. For Motor Cabs upto 6 seats - Rs. 300/- per Qtr. per State (other than Home State) b. For Maxi Cabs of 7-13 seats - Rs. 3000/- per Qtr. per State (other than Home State).
c. For Omni Buses of 14-35 seats - Rs. 12,000/- per Qtr. per State (other than Home State).
Thus, the decision which was arrived at, at the meeting of the Secretaries of the various States of the Transport Department was communicated to all the State Governments by the Government of India in its letter dated August 30, 1993. According to the petitioner, though the State of Haryana received communication dated August 30, 1993, from the Government of India, the State of Haryana has not been implementing the said agreement and continuing to charge at the rate of Rs. 2255/- as passenger tax and Rs. 288/- as road tax for each entry of the vehicle in the State of Haryana. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the agreement which was arrived at, at the meeting of all the Secretaries of the various States held in January, 1992, and which was communicated by the Government of India in its letter dated August 30, 1993. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction to be given to the Government of Haryana to implement the rates as stipulated in the letter dated August 30, 1993.
3. I am of the opinion that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to; firstly the letter dated August 30, 1993, has no legal force. It has not been issued under any provision of law. It is only an executive instruction or advice given by the Government of India to various States. Admittedly, imposition of tax on motor vehicles is a State subject under entry 57 of the State List under Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. However, the power of the State Legislature is subject to entry 35 of the Concurrent List. It is for the appropriate State Legislature to decide how and at what rate to levy the tax on the vehicles which ply in their States. It is not disputed that Parliament has not passed any law under Entry 35 of List III. This Court cannot give any directions to the Government to impose tax at a particular rate. The power to impose tax at a particular rate rests with the appropriate State Government only in the absence of any law passed by the Parliament. There is no power with the Courts to issue any directions to impose tax at a particular rate. The only power vested in the Court in the matter of levy of tax is to examine the constitutionality of the imposition of tax. There is no dispute that the State Government has got the power to impose tax on plying the vehicles which obtained the permits in other States and which ply in the States concerned. Therefore, in my view, no direction to implement the communication of the Government of India dated August 30, 1993, can validly be issued to the respondents including the State of Haryana. I therefore, am of the view that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.