Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Section 20 in The Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
The Amending Act, 1897
Bombay Ferries and Inland Vessels Act, 1868
Section 96 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Laxminarayan And Another vs Returning Officer And Others on 28 September, 1973
Now, a bare look at the proviso would show that when the legislature has used the words "capital cost incurred" it is obvious that the legislature contemplated that before taking recourse to the power which is given to the State Government under the proviso, the State Government is in a position to positively determine what is the capital cost of the bridge and approach road thereto, because when the State Government issues a notification under the proviso to sub-sec (1) of S. 20, the exercise of the power to recover the toll is circumscribed by the latter part of the proviso which expressly puts a limit on the total amount to be recovered. The State Government is not authorised to recover anything more than the capital cost of construction. reconstruction or repairs of the bridge or the tunnel and the expenditure on collection of toll. The word "incurred" is clearly used in the past tense. We may usefully refer to a decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Setalvad in Laxminarayan v. Returning Officer, . The Supreme Court in that case was concerned with the meaning of the words "reasonable expenses incurred by any person in attending to give evidence may be allowed by the High Court to such person ...................." used in S. 96, Representation of the People Act, 1951. Dealing with these words the Supreme Court observed (page 87) : "Incurred means "actually spent'." Strictly speaking, it is not necessary to refer to any further authority for the meaning of the word "incurred" which is used in past tense.
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Birla Brothers (Private) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), ... on 18 July, 1963
(The emphasis is supplied by us)
These authorities will clearly show that when one has to determine what is the cost incurred, it must wither mean the amount actually spent on construction or the amount for which there is a clear liability to pay. In the instant case, on the figures given by the State Government itself, leaving aside the question as to whether the amount of repairs from 1974 to 1982 could validly be considered as a part of the capital cost, even inclusive of such expenses the total capital cost comes to Rs. 8,86,47,804-. We are proceeding on the footing and assuming in favour of the Government that the cost of repairs could be recovered by them, though if the proviso is strictly construed we do not see any reason to doubt that what is contemplated by the proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 20 is that the power is restricted only to recover such capital cost as in incurred on the date on which the toll is levied. 'Capital cost' is a known concept and the capital cost has to be computed on the basis of the capital expenditure incurred in bringing into being the work or the asset, the same, in the instant case being the Thana Creek bridge and the approach roads as on the date on which the notification levying the toll was issued. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Birla Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax , (1964) 54 ITR 344 at p. 354, "Capital expenditure may be described as an outlay resulting in the increase or acquisition of an asset or increase in the earning capacity of a business." According to the Supreme Court, capital expenditure is an expenditure incurred in acquiring fixed assets. If the very purpose of the proviso is to make the machinery and the power available to allow the State Government to reimburse itself in respect of the capital cost incurred on a bridge or a tunnel and any approach road thereto, then it is obvious to us that the capital cost means the actual expenditure incurred as on the date on which the power is so exercised. However, as already pointed out above, since we are concerned only with the question of continuation of levy of the toll in this petition filed sometime in September, 1982, we are proceeding on the basis of the recovery made by the State Government till June 1982.