Vehicles used by an employer under a welfare scheme for carrying its own employees or their children are private service vehicles and not public service vehicles, and therefore, they are not subject to Passenger Tax under the U. P. Motor Gadi (Yatri-Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962.

( 1 ) IN this case a very short point emerges as to whether any Passenger Tax under the provisions of Section 3 of the U. P. Motor Gadi (Yatri-Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the said Act, could be levied on the vehicles of the petitioner used for carrying its own employees or their children according to the terms of their service against a nominal maintenance charge.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner had got these vehicles registered as stage carriages earlier but now it is being registered as private service vehicles. Those vehicles are part of the welfarr scheme for the petitioners employees and their children. The employees of the petitioner are transported to the Factory from particular points of the city and returned. The employees who stay within the Factory premises, the vehicle is used for carrying their children to Schools situated at the City of Allahabad. Besides this purpose, these vehicles are not used for any other purpose. The vehicle is used by a class of people only. Any body and every body are not entitled to use those vehicles. Whoever is allowed to use the vehicle according to the decision of the management are required to pay at the rate of Rs. 25. 00per month as maintenance charges by each employee. The total amount realised for the vehicles is about Rs. 13,800. 00 while total cost of maintenance for the vehicles comes to Rs. 23,672. 00 per month. Whereas only Rs. 4. 00 per child transported to the school and back are charged per month. The total amount realised is only a very insignificantfraction of the maintenance cost spent over these vehicles. Now the Passenger Tax Officer, by letter dated 21st Dec. 1993 levied Passenger Tax on these vehicles, which is Annexure- 5 to the writ petition. Thereafter the Passenger Tax Officer asked the petitioner to deposit Rs. 12,17,677. 00 as difference of tax for the period 29th Sept. 1992 to 7/06/1994, which is Annexure- 6 to. the writ petition: By letter dated 21st Feb. 1994, the petitioner was again asked to deposit the said amount within a period of 30 days, which is Annexure- 8 to the writ petition. Against the said order, the petitioner moved a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1206 of 1994 which was disposed of on 24th Nov. 1994 directing the respondent authority to decide as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay tax or not. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner made a representation contained in Annexure- 9 to the writ petition before the appropriate Authority. The Passenger Tax Officer, by order dated 22nd Dec. 1994, held that since the petitioner has been charging Rs. 25. 00 per employee and Rs. 4. 00 per child, therefore, the same is a hire or reward and, therefore, the petitioners vehicles are liable to be taxed. Against the said order the present writ petition is being moved.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel Mr. L. P. Naithani for the petitioner submitted that the vehicles are not stage carriage but are private service vehicles. Therefore, no Passenger Tax could be charged on these vehicles under Section 6 of the said Act. He further submitted that through inadvertence, the said vehicles were registered as stage carriage earlier but now it is being registered as private service vehicle3a The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that since the petitioner charges Rs. 25. 00 per employee and Rs. 4. 00 per child, therefore, the same is hire or reward for transporting persons and, therefore, the vehicle should be registered as stage carriages and, therefore, are subject to levy of Passenger Tax under the said Act.

( 4 ) MR. L. P. Naithani relied on the decision in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited. v. Sales Tax Officer, AIR 1979 SC 343: 1979 (1) SCC 208 and the case of M/s. Saraya Distillery, Gorakhpur v. Passenger Tax Officer, Gorakhpur, 1990 All LJ 782 and submitted that this case is covered squarely by the two Judgments.

( 5 ) THE learned Standing Counsel, in reply,