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

2006 Supreme(All) 860

[2006(9) ADJ 122 (All)(DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Division Bench)
BEFORE : A.K. YOG AND PRAKASH KRISHNA, JJ.
GAJRAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER .Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS —Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 1601 of 2005, decided on 23rd March, 2006)

Advocates appeared:
Navin Sinha, Sr. Adv., S.P. Dubey for the Petitioner; K.C. Sinha, A.S.G.I, for the Respondent No. 1; S.P. Gupta, Sr. Adv., Isa Khan for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3; S.N. Verma, Sr. Adv., Arun Kumar Singh for the Respondent No. 4.

Headnote:U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916—Sections 2(9), 128—U.P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959—Sections 172(2)—Toll tax—Levy of—Validity—Failure of respondents to plead, or produce any material showing that Central or State Government has ever prescribed rates of toll to be levied by Meerut Municipal Corporation, with reference to road in question—Therefore, Meerut Cantonment Board not competent to levy toll tax, on vehicles passing through its limits—Therefore, impugned notification dated 8-1-2005, liable to be quashed—There was no fault of respondent 4, who was given “Theka”, on basis of impugned notification, he would not be made to suffer—Therefore, Cantonment Board was directed to refund amount deposited by him under “Contract”, or otherwise in pursuance to action taken under impugned notification, and also refund “Security amount”, deposited by him—Also, respondent 4 entitled to claim refund of “Stamp duty”—Hence, petition allowed. [Paras 29 to 42]

       

JUDGMENT

By the Court—This writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, is at the behest of Motor/Bus of ‘Passengers’ Transport Union’ named ‘Meerut-Rohta-Barnawa-Binauli-Baraut Motor Union, for short the ‘Union’ which is represented by its Secretary-Gajraj Singh’, petitioner No. 1.

2. We may record the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that all the members of Union/petitioner No. 2 (list of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition) have paid separate court-fees in respect of each of them and all of them shall be bound by the decision of this writ petition.

3. Members of the ‘Union’ render transport-service to the passengers on ‘Meerut-Rohta-Barnawa-Binauli-Baraut ‘route’ on the basis of valid ‘permit’ issued by competent authority under The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, called ‘M. V. Act’. According to the petitioners, its members have paid ‘Road Tax’ and ‘Additional Tax’, under The U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, hereinafter referred to as M.V. Taxation Act and that they also pay other fee/charges, if any, for availing facilities rendered to by a ‘Local Authority’, apart from paying ‘Property Tax’ under Kshetriy Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam. It is contended that (i) the route in question, which is part of State Highway, was constructed and now maintained by Public Works Department of State of U.P., (ii) a small part of this route intercepts certain roads of Meerut Cantonment Board( called the Board) while passing through territorial limits of the Board (para 5 of the writ petition); and (iii) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 60, Cantonment Act, ‘Draft proposal’ to Ievy ‘Toll Tax’ upon entry of Motor Vehicle-carrying passengers in the territory of the Board, was published in Daily News paper for information of the concerned to file objections, if any, under Section 61, Cantonment Act; the Union through its Secretary admittedly filed objections against Draft proposal to levy Toll tax on Passengers-Vehicles before the Board (Annexure 5 to the writ petition); the concerned authority did not communicate its decision to reject those objections; under notification published in the Gazette of India, dated 8.1.2005 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition); ‘toll tax’ is imposed on Motor vehicles owned by the members of the Union; consequently every transport vehicle of the Member of the Union while entering the limits of the Board, is required to pay toll tax @ Rs. 75.00 per vehicle per trip w.e.f. November, 2005 under the impugned notification and being aggrieved impugned Gazette notification dated 8.1.2005 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is challenged on the ground that the ‘Respondents’ have no power or authority in law to levy such ‘Toll tax’ in question. Grievances of the petitioners are contained in paras 15 to 30 of the writ petition.

4. The impugned notification dated 8.1.2005 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) reads :

“THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. JANUARY 8, 2005(Pausa 18. 1926)

Ministry of Defence

Cantonment Board

Meerut, the

SRO No. Whereas a notice of certain draft notification for imposing of Toll Tax on the entry of commercial vehicles within the Meerut Cantonment conspicuous part of the Cantonment Board, Meerut on 2nd July, 2004 vide No. Legal Cell/TAX PROP and published in local newspapers namely Dainik Jagran & Amar Ujala on 4th July, 2004 as required under Section 61 read with Section 255 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924), inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby till the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of publication of the said notice;

AND WHEREAS, all the objections received from public on the said draft notification have been duly considered by the Cantonment Board;

AND WHEREAS, the Central Government have duly authorized the Cantonment Board, Meerut to impose the Toll Tax above said as required under Section 63 of the said Act;

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 60 of the said






































































































































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top