SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others - Appellants
Versus
Goel Bus Service Kullu Etc. Etc. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s).5534-5594 of 2011
Decided on : 13-01-2023
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - TAXATION - SPECIAL ROAD TAX - VALIDITY - Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1999 (HPMVT(A) Act 1999) - Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2001 (HPMVT(A) Act 2001) - Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1972 (HPMVT Act 1972) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1988 Act) - Entries 56, 57 of List II (the State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution - Entry 35 of List III (the Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution - Whether the imposition of additional special road tax levied on transport vehicle used without a valid permit is not a tax but a penalty and is ultra vires the legislative powers of the State Legislature under Entries 56 and 57 of List II (the State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution - Whether the tax imposed under Section 3(A)(3) of the 1972 Act is regulatory and compensatory in nature.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent and several other similarly situate public transport operators challenged the validity of Section 3-A, Section 3-C, Section 4-A, Section 5-A along with Schedule-III under Section 3-A introduced vide the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 19991[In short “HPMVT(A) Act 1999”] to be held ultra vires the Constitution of India and further the notifications dated 18.12.1999, 23.12.1999, 31.12.1999, 06.01.2000, 12.02.2000 and 01.04.2000 be quashed and set aside.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the tax imposed under Section 3A(3) is regulatory in character and is not a penalty. The Court further held that lumpsum tax could be levied.
Issues: Whether the imposition of additional special road tax levied on transport vehicle used without a valid permit is not a tax but a penalty and is ultra vires the legislative powers of the State Legislature under Entries 56 and 57 of List II (the State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the tax imposed under Section 3A(3) is regulatory in character and is not a penalty. The Court further held that lumpsum tax could be levied. The Court relied on the following precedents: 1. R.K. Garg etc. vs. Union of India & Others reported in (1981) 4 SCC 675 2. Bhavesh D. Parish & Others vs. Union of India & Another reported in (2000) 5 SCC 471 3. Indian Oil Corporation vs. State of Bihar reported in (2018) 1 SCC 242 4. State of T.N. vs. M. Krishnappan and Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 53 5. Commr. Of Agricultural Income Tax vs. Netley ‘B’ Estate (2015) 11 SCC 462 6. Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of T.N. (2004) 3 SCC 1 7. Aas Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan (2020 2 RLW 1567 (Raj) 8. Ranjit Singh vs. Taxation Officer, Rampur and etc (2002 SCC Online All 75 9. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Yash Pal Garg (Dead) by LRs and Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 92 10. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Sukhpal Singh Bal (2005) 7 SCC 615 11. B.A. Jayaram and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (1984) 1 SCC 168 12. Bolani Ores Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1974) 2 SCC 777 13. Sharma Transport Rep. by D.P. Sharma vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 188 14. State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya and Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 290 15. Rajeev Suri vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. (2021 SCC Online SC 7 16. Janhit Manch and Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 505 17. State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Others, (2004) 10 SCC 201 18. M.P. AIR Permit Owners Association and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 1 SCC 320 19. Hardev Motor Transport Vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 613
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court were set aside and the writ petitions were dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Nath, J.
1. The above set of appeals were referred to larger Bench of three Judges in terms of the order dated 05.03.2020 which reads as follows:
“Considering the fact that the issue raised in these appeals was referred to a larger Bench of three Judges in terms of order dated 27.02.1998 in Civil Appeal No. 10457/1995 and other connected cases [reported in (1998) 9 SCC 676] but which appeals later on repealed by Rajasthan Act, 1951, which is on similar lines with the provision involved in the present appeals.
Hence, we deem it appropriate to refer these appeals to a larger Bench of three Judges for an authoritative pronouncement on the questions involved.
Registry is directed to place the matters before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting the appropriate Bench for hearing these appeal(s).”
2. The above referred order dated 27.02.1998 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10457 of 1995 and connected matters reported in State of Rajasthan Vs. Khalsa Travels, (1998) 9 SCC 676 is reproduced below:
“1. These appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan raise questions relating to the constitutional validity of Section 4-B(3) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Rule 4-CC of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) which make provision of levy of special road tax on a transport vehicle which is used without a valid permit or in any manner not authorized by the permit. By the impugned judgments the High Court has held that Section 4-B(3) is ultra vires the rule-making powers conferred on the State Government under the Act.
2. According to the High Court the imposition, though described as a tax, is, in substance, a fine for an alleged offence of plying the vehicle without a valid permit or in contravention of the conditions of permit and such a penalty cannot be treated as a part of regulatory or compensatory tax. On that view, The High Court has declared that Section 4-B(3) of the Act is ultra vires the powers conferred on the State Legislature under Entry 56 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The question that falls for consideration in these appeals is whether the imposition under Section 4-B(3) is not a tax but a penalty and is ultra vires the legislative powers of the State Legislature under Entry 56 and Entry 57 of List II.
3. Having regard to the importance of the question, we consider it appropriate that these matters are considered by a Bench of three Judges. The matter may, therefore, be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for necessary directions.”
A careful perusal of the above orders confines the question for consideration to be whether the imposition of additional special road tax levied on transport vehicle used without a valid permit is not a tax but a penalty and is ultra vires the legislative powers of the State Legislature under Entries 56 and 57 of List II (the State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
3. Civil Appeal No.10457 of 1995 was dismissed vide order dated 15.04.1998 for the reason that similar provisions enacted in the State of Rajasthan were repealed by the Rajasthan Finance Act, 1977 and, as such, the question raised was held to be no longer a live issue. The said appeals along with connected appeals were accordingly dismissed, however, the question was left open. The said order dated 15.04.1998 is reproduced hereunder: -
“These appeals involve the question regarding the validity of Section 4 (B) (3) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1951 and Rule 4 CC of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules. While the matters were pending in this Court the State legislature has enacted Rajasthan Finance Act, 1977 whereby Section 4 (B) (3) has been repealed and since Rule 4 CC was made to give effect to the provisions contained in Section 4 (B) (3) the said rule also has ceased to apply. In view of the aforesaid amendment that has been made b
The tax imposed under Section 3A(3) of the 1972 Act is regulatory in character and is not a penalty.
Subordinate legislation cannot impose taxes unless explicitly authorized by the parent statute, reaffirming the supremacy of plenary legislation.
The Central Government can prescribe principles for motor vehicle taxation, but the actual rates are within the exclusive domain of the States under the MV Act.
The Central Government can prescribe principles for vehicle taxation but lacks authority to set tax rates, which are within State jurisdiction.
The court determined that taxation under the General Sales Tax Act does not directly impede trade as it levies tax on sales, not movement, affirming that indirect effects on trade do not violate cons....
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Amendment and Validation Act, confirming the imposition of the tax on passengers while allowing ope....
Section 19 of the Constitution Amendment Act provided for a window period to the States to remove any inconsistent enactments by way of amendment or repeal or until expiration of one year from such c....
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.