Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Section 88 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 14 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Punjab Travel Co., Ahmedabad vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 January, 2000
9. Petitioner in that case also claimed to have an authorisation from the other state under the 1993 Central Rules to ply vehicles in the territory of Rajasthan. It was contended that the slate tax could not be levied. It was argued that in order to develop tourism in the country, a separate category of authorisation was allowed throughout the country and a fixed composite fee was recommended to be charged from the vehicles covered by the scheme. It was stated that a meeting convened under the auspices of the Minister of Transport on 24.4.1992 recommended for redefining the term 'authorisation', which provided a fixed composite fee to be charged according to the seating capacity of the vehicle. The state of Rajasthan is bound by the said minutes to charge only a composite fee of Rs. 12,000 per Quarter. On behalf of the state of Rajasthan, it was submitted that their state has not accepted the said recommendations and unless the State Rules are amended giving effect to the said minutes, the question of charging less than the amount provided for under their State Act does not arise. The learned Judge, after considering these arguments in the light of the decisions referred, found that the state cannot be restrained from charging the tax as per their State Act.
Section 4 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs Sharad Kumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla & ... on 15 May, 1992
11. I fully concur with the view of the learned Judge and I am of the view that the questions raised by the petitioners herein are answered and covered by the said decision. The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles,. Act, 1974 imposes a levy of tax on motor vehicles In the state of Tamil Nadu. Sub-section (3), the charging section says that tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle issued or kept for use in the state of Tamil Nadu at the rate specified in the Schedule. Sub-section (4) provides for payment of tax in the manner prescribed at 'his choice either quarterly, half-yearly or annually. Section 4(2) says that no motor vehicle shall be used or kept for use in the state of Tamil Nadu at any time unless a licence has been obtained by paying the tax. Section 14 provides for penalty for non-payment of tax. Section 18-A provides for detention of the motor vehicle for non-payment of tax. Section 20 of the said Act provides for remissions of tax subject to certain conditions. In exercise of this power, the Government, in G.O. Ms. No. 1122, Home (Transport, A) Department dated 10.7.1992, reduced the rate of tax with effect from 7.11.1990 in respect of tourist vehicles at the rates specified. The order says that if the period of use does not exceed seven days, the temporary permits granted in respect of tourist vehicles need only pay one- tenth, one-third of the quarterly tax specified in the First Schedule and equivalent to the quarterly tax, if it exceeds 90 days. Hence, assuming in favour of the petitioners, it applies only to temporary permits issued for less than 30 days.
Ugar Sugar Works Ltd vs Delhi Administration And Ors on 22 March, 2001
In the light of the change of the policy of the Government as set out in their letter dated 30.6.2000, the Government has chosen not to agree to the scheme called the Motor Vehicles All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators Rules, 1993. The State Government cannot be compelled to accent the scheme which was found to be to their detriment., when the scheme was accepted by the State and was in force in Tamil Nadu, the operators were charged tax as per G.O.Ms. No. 1122 dated 10.7.1992. When the Government has chosen to revert back to the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the petitioners cannot insist on the concessional rate of composite tax. This judgment cannot hold good in the light of the change of the policy of the Government, In Ugar Sugar Works Limited v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court held that courts shall not enter into the area of testing the Executive policy. Their lordships observed as follows:- "It is well setlled that the courts in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the Executive unless the policy can be faulted' on grounds of malafide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness.