(1.) The controversy involved in all these three writ petitions is similar and the validity of the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 12 of the Uttaranchal Motor Vehicles Taxation Reforms Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Uttaranchal Act of 2003) is under challenge. Therefore, all these writ petitions are being decided by one and common judgment.
(2.) In Writ Petition No. 923 of 2003, the petitioner has sought for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to declare Sections 5, 6 and 12 of the Uttaranchal Motor Vehicles Taxation Reforms Act, 2003 ultra-vires, unconstitutional and to struck down the same as well as mandamus of this Court directing the respondents not to realize or recover any additional tax as per aforesaid provisions of the Uttaranchal Motor Vehicles Taxation Reforms Act, 2003.
(3.) The validity, legality and vir.es of Sections 5, 6 and 12 of the Uttaranchal Act of 2003 have been challenged by the petitioners on the grounds, inter alia, that imposition of additional tax on Goods Carriage and Public Service Vehicles by Sections 5 and 6 of the Uttaranchal Act of 2003 is beyond the legislative competence of the respondents and same is hit by Entry 56 & 57, List II of Schedule VII of Constitution of India. The imposition of additional tax is ultra vires, unconstitutional and same is hit by Articles 246, 265 and 276 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 302 of the Constitution of India. A temporary holder who gets permit to lift the reserve party can not be asked to pay tax for entire month, quarter or irrespective of the fact that vehicles will be on road for two and three days and irrespective of the fact that 50 sealer vehicle in fact carrying less than 50 passengers. The tax as per Entry 56 List II Sch. VII of the Constitution of India can be on the basis of actual passengers traveling and covering particular distance in a particular vehicle. No tax can be imposed under Entry 56 on the vehicle on the basis of seating capacity alone.