SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
NHPC Ltd. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3948 of 2009
With
Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Its Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4738-4743 of 2009
and
Resident Engineer, Dehar Power House Division, Bhakra Beas Management Board - Appellants
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Its Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6931 of 2009
Decided on : 06-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of act of 1955 and amendments (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments by appellants challenging the amendments (Para 4) |
| 3. interpretation of legislative competence (Para 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 4. analysis of legislative changes and judicial precedents (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. legislative competence and legislative intent clarified (Para 15 , 19 , 21) |
| 6. affirmation of the act and its applicability (Para 23 , 26) |
| 7. final order of the court dismissing appeals (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
These appeals have been filed assailing the final Orders of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 11 December, 2008 and 06 May, 2009, whereby the vires of the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1955” for the sake of brevity) as amended from time to time, particularly by the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods (Amendment and Validation), Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment and Validation Act of 1997” for the sake of brevity) has been upheld and the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein, i.e., Civil Writ Petition Nos. 725 of 1998, 422 of 1998, 401 of 2001, 464-467 of 2001 and 79 of 2007, have been dismissed.
Bird’s eye view of the controversy:
2. The controversy in these cases revolves around the question whether, by enacting the Amendment and Validation Act of 1997, the Himachal Pradesh State Legislature has validly removed the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 27 March, 1997. In the said judgment, the Act of 1955 had been held not to include within its scope, the activity of the appellants in providing gratis transport facilities for their employees and their children, as the charging provision contained therein, namely, Section 3 (1) and the Explanation thereto were couched in very ambiguous terms.
2.1. These appeals also call for consideration of ancillary arguments in the matter such as legislative competence of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly to enact the Act of 1955 and the Amendment and Validation Act of 1997, which are stated to be enacted on the strength of Article 246, read with Entry 56 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.
2.2 Further, these appeals also call for interpretation of certain provisions of the Act of 1955, as amended by the Amendment and Validation Act of 1997, so as to determine whether the activity of the appellants, would be a taxable activity under Section 3(1-A) of the Amendment and Validation Act of 1997.
Brief facts of the case:
3. Since the controversy involved in these appeals is identical, the appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the lead matter, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 3498 of 2009 shall be narrated as under:
3.1. The facts in a nutshell are that the Act of 1955 was enacted by the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly with a view to levy tax on passengers and goods carried by road in certain motor vehicles in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The said Act received Presidential assent on 25 November, 1955.
3.2. The appellant, NHPC Ltd. is engaged in the generation of electricity and has various projects in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Many project sites are situated at different locations in the interiors of Himachal Pradesh. These work sites are not properly serviced by any public transport system or regular taxis. The residential colonies of the staff employed at the various project sites are located at far of distances from the project sites. Therefore, as a welfare measure, the appellant, NHPC Ltd. provides transport facilities to its employees in order to enable them to reach their respective work sites from their residential colonies and for their children to travel to and from their schools, comfortably. It is to be clarified at this juncture that the transport facilities
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....
The court reaffirmed that if a route is legally declared a notified route, state transport services maintain exclusive rights to operate, precluding permits for private operators.
The tax imposed under Section 3A(3) of the 1972 Act is regulatory in character and is not a penalty.
Existing holders of saved permits are entitled to renew their permits without distance restrictions until a valid new scheme is enacted, reflecting principles of legal fairness and established judici....
The grant of permits to private operators on nationalized routes is prohibited under the scheme framed under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
The amendments to the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, contravene constitutional rights by altering compensation from market value to book value without adequate compensation, thus infringing on vested ....
Permits granted under the Motor Vehicles Act remain valid during appeal periods, negating tax demands for operating without valid permits.
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.