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

1998 Supreme(Guj) 227

ANIL R.DAVE, K.SREEDHAR RAO
KAUSHIKBHAI K. PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: AMI YAGNIK, PRANAV G.DESAI

K. SREEDHARAN, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Ms. Amee Yajnik, Assistant Government pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) WHEN this petition came up for hearing on 16-4-1998, Counsel appearing on either side wanted main petition itself heard and disposed of. Accordingly, as agreed to by Counsel, we heard arguments at length. We are disposing of the same by this judgment.

( 3 ) GUJARAT State Legislature amended the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 by Act 3 of 1992. As a result of the amendment, sub-S. (5) of S. 3a was substituted. It dealt with the cases of omnibuses. By sub-clause (a) to sub-S. (5), an owner of an omnibus is entitled to refund of the tax upto a maximum of three months in an year on proof of non-user. If refund is claimed for more than three months in any year, he must establish non-user of the omnibus for reasons beyond his control to the satisfaction of an Authorised Officer. The consequence is that on account of non-user of an omnibus, the owner or person having possession or control of the vehicle can get refund of the tax for a period of three months, if he shows that the omnibus has not been used or kept for use during that period. In case refu










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