Jagir Singh: Goel Roadways vs State Of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1975 Supreme(SC) 483

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., K.K. MATHEW AND N.L. UNTWALIA, JJ.
Jagir Singh and others etc. etc., Petitioners

Versus

State of Bihar and another etc. etc., Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 110, 116-172, 321-327, 527-529, 590-593, 597-604, 646-648, 650, 680-681, 683-685, 687, 688, 690-693, 695, 696-698. 734-736, 769-826, 827-952, 1058-1062, 1073-1086, 1088-1089, 1110-1115, 1193-1210, 1298-1300, 1301-1307 and 576-577, 578-584 and 607 of 1975, D/- 26-11-1975.
Writ Petns. Nos. 110, 116-172, 321-327, 527-529, 590-593, 597-604, 644 to 648, 650, 680, 681, 683-685, 687, 688, 690-693, 695, 696-698, 734-736 769-826, 827-952, 1058-1062, 1073-1086, 1088-1089, 1110-1115, 1193-1210, 1298-1300, 1301-1307 of 1975.
AND
Writ Petns. Nos. 576-577, 578-584 and 607 of 1975.
M/s. Goel Roadways and others etc. etc., Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar and other etc. etc., Respondents.
Advocates appeared
M/s. K. B. Rohatgi, D. N. Gupta and V. K. Jain, Advocates. In Writ Petns. Nos. 110, 116-172, 643, and 607/75; M/s. M. S. Ratta and S. K. Sabharwal, Advocates. In Writ Petitions Numbers 688, 852-863, 864-952, 1058-1062, 1073-1086, 1298-1300, 1304-1307/75: Mr. S. T. Desai, Sr. Advocate (In Writ Petitions Nos. 321-327 only), M/s. B. R. Kapur (In Writ Petns. Nos. 527-529 and 321-327) and T. S. Arora, Advocates with him), In Writ Petns. Nos. 321-327, 527-529, 590-593, 650, 691, 697, 698, 1088-1089, 1110-1115 and 1193-1210/75: M/s. M. S. Ratta and S. K. Sbharwal, Advocates. In Writ Petns. Nos. 597-604, 644-647, 683-685, 687, 998 692, 576, 578-579, 580-584/75: Mr. S. C. Patel, Advocate. In Writ Petns. Nos. 680-681, 689, 695-696/75: Mr. C. K. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate. In Writ Petns. Nos. 690-693/75; for Petnrs, Mr. Balabhadra Prasad Singh, Adv. General for the State of Bihar (In Writ Petns. Nos. 110,116-172, 321-327): Mr. U. P. Singh, Advocate in all other matters. In Writ Petitions Nos. 110, 116-172, 590-593, 650, 697 and Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 In Writ Petns. Nos. 647 and 693, Respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 In Writ Petns. Nos. 597, 576, and Respondent No. 1 In Writ Petns. Nos. 577 and 1193-1210/75: Mr. M. C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocate, (In Writ Petns. Nos. 610 and 602/75 only), Mr. M. N. Goswami (In Writ Petns. 769-806/75) and Mr. R. N. Sachthey (In all other petitions, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1, 7 and 13 (In Writ Petn. No. 601/75), Respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 (In Writ Petn. Nos. 680 and 688, Respondents Nos. 1 and 5 In Writ Petn. No. 691, Respondents Nos. 1 and 9 In Writ Petn. Nos. 578-79, Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 In Writ Petn. Nos. 600, 1073-86, Respondent No. 6 In Writ Petn. No. 690 and Respondent No. 7 In Writ Petn. No. 599/75: Mr. G. N. Dikshit, Sr. Advocate (In Writ Petn. No. 603 only), Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, with him in all the petitions) for Respondent Nos. 1 and 7 In Writ Petn. 603, Respondents Nos. 1, 5-7 In Writ Petn. Nos. 645, 695, Respondents Nos. 1 and 5-7 In Writ Petn. Nos. 1073-1086, Respondents Nos. 1 and 7 In Writ Petn. No. 584 and for Respondents In Writ Petns. Nos. 1208-1300: Mr. L. M. Singhvi, Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan and Mr. S. M. Jain, Avd., for Respondent No. 1 In Writ Petn. Nos. 598, 646, 692 and for Respondents. In 581-82/75: Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, Respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 In Writ Petn. No. 604, Respondents In Writ Petn. Nos. 643, 698, 1110-1115, and Respondents Nos. 1, 7 and 8 In Writ Petns. 683-84, Respondents Nos. 1, 6, 8 In Writ Petn. No 696, Respondents In Writ Petn. Nos. 607 and 1088-89/75: Mr. V. S. Desai, Sr. Advocate (In Writ Petn. Nos. 646 and 689/75), (Mr. M. N. Shroff. Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 8 in Writ Petn. 602, Respondent 8 In Writ Petns. 598, and 646, Respondent 1 In Writ Petn. Nos. 599 and 687, Respondents Nos. 1 and 5 in Writ Petn. No. 685 and Respondents 1, 5-8 In Writ Petn. No. 689/75: Mr. O. P. Sharma, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1, 5, 6, 10 In Writ Petn. No. 600, Respondents Nos. 2 and 6 In Writ Petn. 691 and Respondent No. 1 In Writ Petn. No. 689/75: Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1 (In Writ Petn. Nos. 734-736/75): for the Respondents.

Headnote:
Motor vehicles Act, 1939 – Sections 54, 55 and 56, 59 – Punjab Passengers and Goods Act, 1952 – Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Goods) Act, 1962 – Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959 – Maharashtra Tax on Goods (Carried by Road) Act, 1962 – Mysore Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act, 1961 –Accident – Claim of Compensation - Reference may be made to the Bihar Act as typical of all the cases covered by these petitions – pattern of all the Acts is similar – At the outset it may be stated that the validity of the Bihar Act was some years back challenged with regard to retrospective operation of the Act – This Court in Civil Appeals – Bihar decided and reported in upheld the retrospective operation of the Bihar Act – That section provides that on and from the date on which this Act is deemed to have come into force there shall be levied and paid to the State Government a tax on passengers and goods carried by a public service motor vehicle – Held, Bihar Act prescribes Rules made under the Bihar Act – Bihar Act and Rules thereunder define agent to mean a person authorised in writing by owner to appear on his behalf before a prescribed authority. An agent under the Bihar Act is only one authorised by the owner to appear before a prescribed authority for different purposes mentioned in the Rules – Bihar Act, and the Rules do not recognise any agency in the matter of 1003 tax on fares and freights payable to the owner of the public service vehicle – agents under public Carrier Rules are licenced to do the special task of collecting, forwarding and distributing goods carried by public carriers – They charge fees for such service and they have special responsibility and liability under terms of agency – These agents are not owners of public service vehicles – Fact that these licensed agents have to furnish the operators with correct figures of freight receivable by them shows not only that they are accountable to the owners or operators but also that licensed agents are not the owners or operators – Applications for public carrier s permit, procedure in considering application for public carrier s permit and grant of public carrier s permit Section 59 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 states that save as provided in Section 61, a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not without such permission operate to confer on any pension to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. Section 61 speaks of trnasfer of permit on the death of the holder – Therefore, these provisions in the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 indicate that a permit cannot be transferred – Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

RAY, C. J. :— The question raised in these petitions is whether the petitioners are liable to pay tax under Bihar Taxation on Passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Act).

2. The other petitioners raised similar question under Maharashtra Tax on Goods (Carried by Road) Act, 1962: Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959; Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Goods) Act, 1962: Punjab Passengers and Goods Act, 1952; the Gujarat Carriage of Goods Taxation Act, 1962; the Mysore Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act, 1961.

3. Reference may be made to the Bihar Act as typical of all the cases covered by these petitions. The pattern of all the Acts is similar.

4. At the outset it may be stated that the validity of the Bihar Act was some years back challenged with regard to retrospective operation of the Act. This Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 16 and 17 of 1963 - Rai Ram Krishna v. State of Bihar decided on 11 March, 1963 and reported in AIR 1963 SC 1667 upheld the retrospective operation of the Bihar Act.

5. Section 3 of the Bihar Act is the charging section. That section provides that on and from the date on which this Act is deemed to have come into force there shall be levied and paid to the State Government a tax on passengers and goods carried by a public service motor vehicle.

6. The other two relevant provisions in the Bihar Act are subsections (2) and (3) of the charging Section 3 of the Act. The said subsection (2) provides that every owner 999 shall, in the manner prescribed in Section 9, pay to the State Government, the amount of tax due under Section 3. Sub-section (3) provides that every passenger carried by a public service motor vehicle and every person whose goods are carried by such vehicle shall be liable to pay to the owner the amount of tax payable under Section 3 and every owner shall recover such tax from such passenger or person as the case may be.

7. When the Act came into force such tax was levied and paid at the rate of twelve and a half per cent of the fares and freights payable to the owner of such vehicle. The rate of tax was raised to twenty per cent under a notification dated 25 May 1973.

8. There is also a provision in the Bihar Act for lump sum payment in lieu of the tax at Rs. 320/- per month per vehicle. Formerly, the lump sum was Rs. 160/- per month per vehicle with the carrying capacity of the vehicle at 10 metric tons.

9. Section 9 of the Bihar Act speaks of payment and recovery of tax. That section provides that before any owner furnished any return under this Act he shall, in the prescribed manner, pay into the Government Treasury the full amount of tax due from him under this Act according to such return and shall furnish along with the return a receipt from such treasury showing payment of the said amount. Further if any owner fails, without any reasonable cause, to make payment of the tax due from him according to the return furnished under Section 6, the prescribed authority may direct that the owner shall, in addition to that amount of tax payable by him, pay by way of penalty a sum not exceeding five rupees for every day after the expiry of the period prescribed under the said section. The amount of tax and penalty, if any which remains unpaid after the date specified in the notice issued shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.

10. The provisions in the different Acts in different States are identical to the provisions in the Bihar Act. The only material difference in the Maharashtra, Gujarat and Mysore Acts is that instead of the word "owner" of public vehicle the word used is the "operator" of public vehicle.

11. The expression "owner" is defined in the Bihar Act in Sec. 2 (d) thereof as follows :-

"Owner" means the owner of a public service motor vehicle in respect of which a permit has been granted by a Regional or State Transport Authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document