Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)
V. Hariharan vs The Regional Transport Officer on 10 June, 2019 cites

Parveen Travels vs The Regional Transport Officer on 12 February, 2008

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the temporary permit was granted in the favour of the petitioner vehicle under section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicle Act, tax has already been collected and therefore collection of another tax is arbitrary as held by the decision of this Court in the case of Parveen Travels & Other Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Salem-7., reported in 2008 (1) TN MAC 538 wherein this Court held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Hardev Motor Transport vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 19 October, 2006

In Hardev Motor Transport Vs. State of M.P., 2006 (8) SCC 613, the constitutionality of Entry http://www.judis.nic.in 3 IV (G) and Explanation 7 (as amended in 2004) of Schedule I of M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 was tested. The facts of this case are that the holders of Contract Carriage permit were alleged to have used their vehicles as Stage Carriages and their vehicles were determined. The petitioners therein were asked to pay duty, as if the vehicles were being plies without any permit. The amendments and the levy was challenged before the High Court and the operators were unsuccessful. On Appeal, the Supreme Court having regard to the nature of tax and the type of permits granted under the Motor Vehicles Act at paragraphs 29, 30 and 32 held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 78 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1