Point of Law: Burden of proving applicability would be on assessee to show that his case comes within parameters of exemption clause or exemption notification.

ORDER :

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dated 28/8/2012 and 18/10/2012, whereby, the prayer made by the petitioners seeking exemption in terms of notification dated 9/3/2011 in special road tax has been rejected and the appeals filed by the petitioners before the Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur have also been rejected.

2. It is inter alia indicated in the petitions that the petitioners purchased new chassis of passenger vehicle in January, 2011 (in CW No. 11701/2013, 11692/2012 & 11232/2013) and in rest of the petitions (CW 11691/2013 & 11693/2013) in September, 2009 for any contingent use/need in future, therefore, they did not fabricate stage carriage body over the said chassis.

3. The State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 ('the Act, 1951') issued a notification dated 9/3/2011 providing for exemption from payment of special road tax for the new stage carriage passenger vehicles purchased after the notification and registered before 31/3/2013 plying on the rural routes. The said exemption was originally available for a period of two years from the date of registration, which was subsequently extended to one more year vide notification dated 6/3/2013.

4. It is claimed that in view of exemption of tax, the petitioners planned for fabrication of body upon the chassis already purchased by them in January, 2011 and September, 2009 and after completion of fitment of body to the chassis applied for registration and got the same registered on various dates. Whereafter, the petitioners applied and obtained permit for the vehicles to ply on the rural routes.

5. It is submitted that in view of exemption granted by the notification, the petitioners did not pay the special road tax and applied to the respondents for issuance of tax clearance certificate, however, the same was rejected on 28/8/2012 indicating that as the vehicles in question were purchased by the petitioners before the date of notification, they were not entitled to exemption in the special road tax and the appeals filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Regional Transport Officer.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the rejection of petitioners' claim for exemption pursuant to the notification dated 9/3/2011 is ex facie illegal inasmuch as in terms of the said notification the petitioners had substantially complied with the requirement for getting the exemption and the refusal to extend benefit of exemption to the petitioners is not justified.

7. Submissions have been made that admittedly the petitioners got the fitment of body on the chassis of the vehicle after the exemption notification was issued and got the vehicles registered after the notification was issued and, therefore, keeping in view the purpose of exemption notification, the authority should have extended the benefit to the petitioners and, therefore, action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be set aside and the petitioners be held entitled to exemption from special road tax and the amount deposited by the petitioners during the period of exemption be ordered to be refunded back.

8. Reliance has been placed on the judgments in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. J.K.Synthetics : (2000) 10 SCC 393, Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. M/s Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors. : (2011) 1 SCC 236 and Govt. of Kerala & Anr. vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent : (2021) 5 SCC 602.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the exemption notification clearly provided that the new stage carriage passenger vehicles should have been purchased after the date of notification and as, admittedly, the vehicles in question were purchased by the petitioners prior to 9/3/2011, the date of notification, irrespective of the plea raised that the body was got fitted on the chassis after the i