2002(6) Supreme 201
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Mahakoshal Tourist, Napier Town & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5560 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4771 of 1994)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5561, 5562-70 of 2002 @ SLP (C) Nos. 5034/94, 4516-4524/1995, W.P. (C) No. 281/1994, C.A.No. 2176/1993 and SLP (C) No. 6483/1995
Decided on 3-9-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.L. Lahoty, P.K. Sharma, A.P. Dhamija, Sushil Kumar Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Pramod Swarup (N/P) S.K. Mehta (N/P), Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sakesh Kumar, S.K. Agnihotri, Advocate Exparte.
Held : Non-use of a vehicle in the State is by itself not enough; the fact of non-use has to be declared to the concerned authority to avoid tax liability. The principle underlying taxing the vehicle in the absence of such a declaration and relieving it from the burden of tax only when a declaration of non-use is given, has been explained by this Court. (Para 10)
The registered owner or any person having possession of or control of a motor vehicle for which a certificate of registration is current shall for the purpose of this Act be deemed to use or keep such vehicles for use in the State, except during any period for which the Regional Transport Authority has certified in the prescribed manner that the motor vehicle has not been used or kept for use. The presumption is that a motor vehicle for which a certificate of registration is current shall be deemed to be used or kept for use in the State. This is to ensure and safeguard the revenue of the State by relieving it from the burden of proving that the vehicle was used or kept for use on the public road of the State. At the same time, the interest of the bonafide owner is also safeguarded by enabling him to claim or obtain a certificate of non-use from the prescribed authority and, in that case, the owner is required to give intimation of non-use. (Para 11)
There are adequate provisions in Act 25 of 1991, as amended, and the Rules framed thereunder for ascertaining the liability, assessment and refund of tax leviable under the said Act. The vehicles plied by the members of the appellant Association, which are registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh, are within the net of charge under Section 3. They do not qualify for refund of tax merely because while plying in other States in connection with a contract with tourists, the vehicle cannot be said to be used or kept for use in the State. However, they will be entitled to refund of tax only on fulfilment of requirements of Section 14 of Act 25 of 1991 and the Rules made thereunder. (Para 14)
ORDER
Civil Appeal Nos. 5560, 5561, 5562-70 of 2002 @ SLP (C) No. 4771/1994 and SLP (C) No. 5034/1994 and SLP (C) Nos. 4516-4524/1995 :
Leave is granted.
2. This batch of appeals arises from the common judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) passed on February 9, 1994 in various writ petitions filed by bus operators holding All-India Tourist permits.
3. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed The Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 [for short, Act 25 of 1991 ] under Entry 57 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The said Act was subsequently amended by Act 26 of 1991. Act 25 of 1991, thus amended, was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, inter alia, on the ground of lack of legislative competence. The High Court repelled the contention and dismissed the writ petition (Misc. Petition No. 39 of 1992) on 1st October, 1992. Subsequently, Act 25 of 1991 was again amended by Act 10 of 1993, which was also questioned but it was upheld by the High Court in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Misc. Petition No. 1646 of 1993), reported in 1993 M.P.L.J. 992. The scope of challenge in this batch of writ petitions is with regard to the absence of a machinery for assessment of tax for the vehicles plying on the basis of All India Tourist Permit in the State of Madhya Pradesh and denying them refund of tax for the period they were not used or kept for use in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
4. Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the civil appeal (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4771 of 1994), has contended that though the Act was upheld by the High Court, it was observed that the State should provide procedure for assessment of tax liability, already created, by way of filing return, assessment and payment of tax. What the learned counsel submits is that for the purpose of ascertaining the tax liability and refunding the tax, there is no provision in Act 25 of 1991 and the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Rules, 1991 (for short, "the M.P. Rules") as such the provisions of the Act have to be declared as unconstitutional.
5. We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention of the learned counsel. On a plain reading of the provisions of Act 25 of 1991, it is evident that Section 3 is the charging section, assessment procedure is laid down in Section 8 of the Act for assessment and as a consequence of assessment where the operator is found entitled to refund, Section 14 provides for refund of the tax. These provisions equally apply to the operators holding All-India Tourist permits. Section 14, insofar as it is relevant for our purpose, reads as follows:
"14. Refund of tax.-- (1) Where
(i) the tax for any motor vehicle has been paid for any month, quarter, half year or year and the motor vehicle has not been used during the whole of that month, quarter, half year or year or a continuous part thereof not being less than one month and written intimation of such non-use has been given in the prescribed form to the Taxation Authority in the manner prescribed prior to the commencement of the period of such non-use; or
(ii) the vehicle has been so altered as to entitle the owner to the refund of a portion of the already paid,
a refund of the tax shall be payable at such rates and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. "
6. From a perusal of the provisions, extracted above, it is clear that (1) where tax has been paid for any month, quarter, half year or a year and any motor vehicle (which includes a vehicle plying on the basis of All-India Tourist permit) has not been used during the whole of the month, quarter, half year or year or a continuous part thereof, not being less than one month, and written intimation of such non-use has been given in the prescribed form to the Taxation Authority in the manner prescribed prior to the commencement of the period of non-use;
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.