Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
SUNIL AMBWANI and AJIT SINGH, JJ.
Balram & Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.272, 295, 174, 179/2015
Decided On : 25.03.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr.Satish Khandelwal on behalf of Mr.Deendayal Khandelwal, Mr.Sandeep Taneja for the appellants.
Mr.V.D.Gathala for the respondents.
Headnote:Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, Sec. 6; Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, Explanation 1(4) — The meaning, Scope and relation between the words "other route" and "Inter-State routes" — Imposition of penalty on subsequently raising demand of tax, for the period, the exemption was given — Held — The words "other route" are not defined in Act or Rules — Considering the object, for which the exemption was given, the Inter State routes could not be included in the expression "other route" — The Deptt. itself did not raise any demand until the clarification was issued — The requirement of payment of tax, in defence, by itself, would not be a ground to impose a penalty, for non payment of the tax — Absence of mens rea — The penalty cannot be levied — Demand of penalty on tax set aside.
Appeals partly allowed. (Paras 9, 10, 14 to 16)
jktLFkku eksVj ;ku dj vf/kfu;e] 1951] /kkjk 6( jktLFkku eksVj ;ku fu;e] 1990] Li"Vhdj.k 1¼4½ & ^^vU; ekxZ** vkSj ^^vUrjkZT; ekxZ** 'kCnksa dk vFkZ] O;kfIr vkSj lEcU/k & dj dh i'pkr~orhZ mBk;h ekax ij 'kkfLr dk vf/kjksi.k ftl vof/k esa NwV nh xbZ Fkh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fu;eksa esa ^^vU; ekxZ** 'kCnksa dks ifjHkkf"kr ugha fd;k x;k gS & ml mn~ns'; ij fopkj djrs gq,] ftl gsrq mUeqfDr nh xbZ Fkh] ^^vUrjjkT; ekxZ** dks ^^vU; ekxZ** esa lfEefyr ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk & Lo;a foHkkx us Hkh rc rd dksbZ ekax ugha mBk;h tc rd fd Li"Vhdj.k tkjh ugha fd;k x;k & izfrj{kk esa] dj ds Hkqxrku dh okaNuh;rk vius vki gh] dj dk lank; u djus ij 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djus dk vk/kkj ugha gksxh & vkijkf/kd eu% fLFkfr dk vHkko & 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir ugha dh tk ldrh & dj ij 'kkfLr dh ekax vikLr dhA
vihy va'kr% Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 9] 10] 14 ls 16½
1. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. These Special Appeals arise out of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 05.02.2015, by which he decided and dismissed 17 writ petitions, against the demand of tax raised in pursuance to the clarification issued by the State Government on 24.07.2014. On the issuance of the notification, by the Additional Transport Commissioner (Tax), clarifying the notifications dated 09.03.2011 and 06.03.2013, to the effect that the exemption to the new Stage Carriage Passenger vehicles purchased after the date of notification i.e.09.03.2011, and registered before 30.03.2013, and plying exclusively on Rural routes and other route (as classified under the provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990), from the payment of special road tax payable under Section 4B of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, for a period of two years from the date of registration, will not be applicable to the State Carriages plying on the Inter-State routes.
3. By the notification dated 09.03.2011, a partial exemption was given to the Stage Carriages plying exclusively on Rural routes and other route (as classified under the provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990), in payment of tax. The State Government was of the view that so far as the Stage Carriages plying on Inter-State routes are concerned, the officers of the Transport Department do not have the uniform approach. It was clarified that the Inter-State routes cannot be included within the meaning of the words “other route”, and thus, the exemptions given to the vehicles plying on the Inter-State routes, shall not be applicable, and accordingly, the tax should be imposed. Consequently, the demand of tax has been raised, for the period, the exemption was given. The Taxing Authority also imposed penalty on such demand under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951.
4. It was submitted before learned Single Judge that the expression “Rural Routes” has been defined in the definition clause of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, and that, though the “Other route” has not been defined in the definition clause, Explanation 1(4) to Rule 5.5, provides for the classification, which is the only classification provided under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990. The words “Rural route” and “Other route”, as explained in Explanation 1 to Rule 5.5, are quoted as below:-
“Explanation 1- For the purpose of this sub-rule the above classification of route shall have the following meaning:-
(1) Notified route shall means the route notified under section 100 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
(2) Non-Notified route shall mean a route which is not a notified route.
(3) Sub-Urban route and rural route shall means a route as defined in the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990.
(4) Other route shall mean;
(i) a route which is not covered under a sub-urban route, rural route, route lying exclusively within the area of Municipality or U.I.T. or both.
(ii) the existing Stage carriage routes lying beyond the area of Municipality or U.I.T. or both at the time of commencement of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles (IInd Amendment) Rules, 2004 unless the Category is changed by the State Government.”
5. Learned Single Judge has, after a detailed discussion, opined that the words “Other route”, have been used, in the company of the words “Rural routes”, taking into account the object and purpose of the exemption, would not include the Inter-State routes. The observation of learned Single Judge, with regard to the object and purpose of grant of exemption, which was wrongly given to the State Carriage plying on Inter-State routes is quoted as below:-
“In the context of aforesaid principles of interpretation of exemption notifications, more particularly with regard fiscal statutes the specific case of respondent State is to be seen. It is that exemption notifications dated 9-3-2011 and 6-3- 2013 were for the purpose of inc
