Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the creation of the third category of a vehicle in Serial No. 7(a) of the notification dated 24.02.2021 has entailed into the denial of exemption granted to the petitioner in the unamended provision in categories provided in Serial No. 7(a)(i) and 7(a)(ii). He further submitted that the denial of the exemption to the petitioner in these circumstances becomes relevant when the category of 'sleeper bus' has not been defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He submitted that creation of a 'sleeper bus' category is a clear discrimination vis-a-vis other buses mentioned at Serial No. 7(a)(i) and 7(a)(ii) as no exemption has been granted to the 'sleeper buses' mentioned in the category.

11. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if a category of vehicle in the name of 'sleeper bus' at S.No. 7(a)(iii) has been created by the respondents, then the exemption granted to the category-(i) and (ii) mentioned in Serial No. 7(a) cannot be denied to the petitioner, if the 'sleeper bus' is plied within the one revenue divisional area. He further submitted that the discussion for grant of concessional rates to the buses mentioned in category at S.No.7(a)(i) and (ii) was centering around those buses which are plied within one revenue divisional area and therefore, on the same count, if the sleeper coach buses are permitted to be plied in one revenue divisional area, the benefit of concessional rate of tax should have been made available to the category at S.No.7(a)(iii) also. [2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (15 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in many other States, the category of 'sleeper bus' has been defined and the rate of tax has been imposed categorizing it as a different category whereas in the State of Rajasthan, the category of 'sleeper bus' has not been defined anywhere and therefore, levy of tax on the body type of the vehicle is de hors the law.

13. Learned counsel further submitted that the so-called substitution under the amendment has, in reality, introduced a new class of vehicles for higher taxation under the garb of altering tax rates. This is a colorable exercise of power which virtually cripples the petitioner's business and adversely impacts public transport services. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the notification dated 24.2.2021 (Annex.5) inserting the class of motor vehicle as 'Sleeper Bus' at S.No. 7(a)(iii) to the parent notification dated 10.07.2019 be quashed and set aside and as a consequence, the notices issued in Form MTR dated 24.03.2023 and Form MTQ dated 21.06.2023 be quashed.

37. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in other States the class of Motor Vehicles in the 'Sleeper Bus' category has been created for imposing the tax, but, in the State of Rajasthan there is no such provision, thus, it can safely be [2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (28 of 30) [CW-11535/2023] presumed that the State Government has exceeded its jurisdiction in creating such category is noted to be rejected on the ground that as per Rule 7.14A of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, the category of 'Sleeper Coach' has been provided and as per the respondents 'Sleeper Bus' and 'Sleeper Coach' are one and the same. Since the 'Sleeper Coach' and 'Sleeper Bus' are the categories of type/class of vehicle mentioned in the Motor Vehicles Act, hence, not mentioning the 'Sleeper Bus' into a separate category will not create any hindrance for the State to impose tax on the category i.e. 'Sleeper Bus' at S.No.7(a)(iii) inserted vide notification dated 24.02.2021.