The validity of legislative amendments and the authority of the state government to impose tax and penalty under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958.

( 1 ) MR. PRASHANT G. Desai, learned Counsel appearing in Special civil Application No. 3240 of 2005, and Mr. Ramkrishna B. Dave, learned Counsel appearing in the connected matters, are heard for the petitioners. Mr. Uday Bhatt, learned Assistant Government pleader, is heard for the State.

( 2 ) THE questions raised in all these petitions are identical, but, for the purposes of this judgement, we will take the facts from Special Civil Application No. 3240 of 2005.

( 3 ) THE petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3240 of 2005, who is an owner of Omnibus No. GTE 6994, submitted `nt Forms for the month of May-2000 under Rule-5 of the Bombay Motor vehicles Tax Rules, 1959 (for short "the Rules"); the same was sanctioned by the respondent-Authority. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed `nt Forms in June and July-2000 for non-user. It was submitted by the petitioner that since the composite tax imposed by the State Government was too excessive and since there was scarcity, the petitioner was not able to run its business and the request was accordingly made for grant of `nt Forms for the period of June and July-2000. The said `nt forms were rejected on the ground that same were not in consonance with Act No. 11 of 2000. Immediately thereafter, the authority, vide its Notice dated 24th August, 2000, made a demand of tax of Rs. 36,750/- and also demanded penalty of rs. 9,188/ -. The petitioner took up the matter in Appeal No. 22 of 2000 before respondent No. 2 under Section-14 of the Bombay Motor vehicles Act, 1958 (for short "the Act"), read with Rule-29 of the Rules. Since after rejection of the appeal, instead of filing a statutory revision under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner has now come to this Court challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the order, directing imposition of tax and levying penalty on the ground that Gujarat act No. 11 of 2000 was held to be ultra vires by this Court and the authority simply had to see that whether the vehicle was used or was kept for use or not and in case it was proved to the satisfaction of the authority that the vehicle was not used, nor was kept for use, then, no tax could be demanded and if tax had already been demanded or paid, it ought to have been refunded. It is to be seen that the Act of 1958 (Act No. 65 of 1958) had undergone various changes. Though the State of Gujarat had adopted the Act on division of the State, but, later on, made various amendments in the Bombay Act. The said Bombay Motor vehicles Tax Act, 1958 continuous to be operative in the State of Gujarat with its local amendments. Sections 3a and 3b were substituted by Section-3a of Gujarat Act No. 20 of 1982 and again section-3a was substituted by Gujarat Act No. 10 of 1991. The table appended to Section-3a was substituted by Gujarat Act no. 13 of 1995 with effect from 1st August, 1995 and thereafter, gujarat Act No. 11 of 2000 made certain amendments in the said act. Act No. 11 of 2000, which became operative with effect from 1st April, 2000, made certain amendments in the original Act, so also in Section-3a. We are not concerned with the other amendments, but, are concerned with the amendment carried out in clause- (b) of Sub. Section- (5) of Section-3a of the Act.

( 4 ) IN Clause- (b), for the portion beginning with the words "the designated omnibus in respect of which the tax has been paid" and ending with the words "three months in a year" following was substituted:"the designated omnibus in respect of which tax has been paid, has not been used or kept for use for a period exceeding one month in a year on account of an accident, which is registered in the Police Station or of the order of the competent court or the government authority".

( 5 ) THIS amendment was challenged before this Court in Special civil Application No. 1288 of 2001 and other connected matters. A division Bench, by its judgement dated 17th August, 2001, observed in paragraph-41 as under:"41. As