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

1985 Supreme(AP) 327

A.LAKSHMANA RAO, P.CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, P.KODANDA RAMAYYA
V. Govindarajulu – Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Officer, Anantapur – Respondent


P. CHENNAKESAV REDDY, ACTG. C. J.

( 1 ) THESE cases raise a vexed question of considerable importance, frequently faced by the transport authorities and owners of public service vehicles and agitated before the Courts. The question is when is a contract carriage as defined under Section 2 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (for brief the Act) said to have been used as a stage carriage as defined under section 2 (29) of the Act in order to attract the levy and demand of the increased rate of tax for a stage carriage as notified under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (for brief the Taxation Act ). Is it necessary for the levy of tax as a stage carriage that the owner of the public service vehicle should hold a valid permit to ply it as a stage carriage? When one of the cases, W. P. No. 15820 of 1984 came up for hearing before Jeevan Reddy and Sardar Ali Khan, JJ. , the learned Judges felt that the course of judicial authority on the question had not been steady but teetered particularly after the Division Bench decision of this Court in W. P. No. 3714 of 1982 and it was therefore not only desirable but necessary to have an authoritative pronouncemen



























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