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

2000 Supreme(All) 188

G.P.MATHUR, M.KATJU, M.C.AGARWAL
JAGDISH PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
PASSENGER TAX OFFICER, MATHURA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
RAVI KANT CHADHA

M. KATJU, J.

( 1 ) I have perused the judgment of my esteemed brother Honble G. P. Mathur, J. and regret my inability to agree with the same. Hence I am giving my own decision.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an owner of four buses registered as contract carriages with the Regional Transport Authority, Mathura. The petitioner entered into a contract with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. A true copy of the agreement is Annexure to the writ petition. Under this contract the petitioner has placed its vehicles at the disposal of the Corporation for carrying the employees of the Corporation from their residence to the office of the Corporation. The petitioner is paid charges not according to the number of passengers but according to the kilometers covered by the vehicle. In lieu of rendering such services the petitioner is paid an amount as provided in Article 3. 1 of the Contract (Page 29 of the writ petition. ).

( 3 ) BY means of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the levy of passenger tax under the U. P. Motor Gadi (Yatri-Kar) Adhiniyam 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam ). In paragraph 11 of the writ petition it is alleged that if a vehicle is run by a person exclusively in





















































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