Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
Cherian Thomas vs Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam ... on 8 December, 1980 cites

Bolani Ores Ltd. Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 24 September, 1974

This passage further lends support to the view that Section 5 (1) has to be construed as a provision substantial compliance of which is sufficient and that is what is required. No doubt when Section 3 (3) is attracted and the presumption arises against the petitioner, then it is for the petitioner to establish that the facts necessary to attract Section 5 (1) of the Act are obtained. It is to be remembered that as already indicated and as stated by the Supreme Court in Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa (AIR 1975 SC 17) the exigency of tax is the user of a vehicle on the public road or keeping that vehicle for use on the public road. The tax payer is entitled to, show that the exigency of tax has not fallen and that therefore he is not liable to pay tax under the provisions of the taxing Act. This I suppose is the principle on which the decision of the Supreme Court is founded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 180 - P J Reddy - Full Document

Travavancore Tea Co. Ltd. Etc vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 3 June, 1980

10. This, my view is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court, already referred to, in Travancore Tea Co. v. State of Kerala (AIR 1980 SC 1547). In that case as a matter of fact there was no application at all under Section 5 (1) of the Act. No such application appears to have been submitted, because the vehicle in question along with some other vehicles of the appellant before the Supreme Court were exclusively used only on the appellant's private roads. Taking the view that mere keeping of the vehicle creates tax liability, the concerned authorities seized one of the vehicles in question. It was only thereafter that the appellant before the Supreme Court wrote to the concerned authority asking for release of the said vehicle on the ground that the said vehicle was not liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Act. This letter was only on 28-12-1964 that is to say towards the end of the last quarter of 1964.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 30 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 11 October, 1976

This Court in the two decisions already referred to, Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1972 Ker LT 760) and Peermade Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1972 Ker LT 848) took the view that irrespective of user of the vehicle on the public road the vehicle is liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court said that it is not so and that the authorities have proceeded under a misconception. Noticing that the question has not been approached from the correct perspective, the Supreme Court directed the Regional Transport Officer to verify as to whether the vehicle in question has as a matter of fact been used on the public roads of the State or has been kept for use on the public roads of the State. The Supreme Court further said that the Regional Transport Officer "will be at liberty to act under Section 5 (2) of the Act and decline exemption from the liability to pay tax for the relevant period if on verification it is found that the vehicle has been used during that period, on the public road." It appears to me that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has proceeded as if the person who seeks an exemption from tax can establish and prove the fact that the vehicle in question has not been used on the public roads of the State, nor has been kept for such use and thereby obtain exemption from payment of the tax under the provisions of the Act. The facts of the Supreme Court case stated above and the direction given by that Court lend support to only such a construction. The Supreme Court in that connection in fact said as follows (at p. 1551 of AIR) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 20 - H R Khanna - Full Document
1