SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 1118

M.M.PUNCHHI, SUJATA V.MANOHAR
Regional Transport Officer Cum Taxing Authority, Rourkela – Appellant
Versus
Steel Authority Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Altaf Ahmed, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Ahmed, J.K.DAS, P.N.MISHRA, S.K.MEHTA

JUDGMENT :- The Steel Authority of India, the sole respondent herein, employs a fleet of buses meant to carry its employees from its township to its factory at Rourkela. This has been so far over three decades. For some inexplicable reasons, the Steel Authority of India Ltd. was all along being made to pay tax under Item 3 of the Scheduled to the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 on buses kept by it on the footing of being goods carriers. As is the case of both sides, Item 3 hardly applicable and yet tax was kept asked and paid. With effect from 9-12-1990, the appellant herein, i. e., State of Orissa and 537 its officers, put to change the head of taxation and required the respondent to pay higher tax under Item 4 of the Schedule, where under rates of tax are prescribed for motor vehicles plying for hire and used for conveyance of passengers, including motor cabs. Challenging such step the respondent-Steel Authority of India, moved the High Court of Orissa in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Right at the outset, the High Court in dealing with the controversy fell into a factual error in assuming that the change effected was from Item No. 6 to Item No.




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top