JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. PASSENGER TAX OFFICER MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have perused the judgment of my esteemed brother Hon'ble 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 connection with his trade or business without any hire or reward from the passengers, the incidence of taxation under the Adhiniyam would not be attracted. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner does not ply vehicles for hire or reward and the petitioner does not collect passenger tax from the passengers. In paragraph 14 of the petitionit is alleged that since the provisions of the Adhiniyam did not cover the petitioner, he did not submit the monthly returns as required by Sec. 6 but the Passenger Tax Officer, issued notice under Sec. 6 to the petitioner. In response to this notice the petitioner appeared before the Passenger Tax Officer, and submitted that he does not carry passengers for hire or reward and that he had placed his vehicles at the disposal of the corporation for providing transport service to its employees. However, the Passenger Tax Officer did not consider the petitioner's submissions and passed assessment orders, true copies of which are Annexure 2 to 5 to the petition. Against these orders the petitioner filed appeals which have been dismissed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner by the order dated 8-11-1985, Annexure-5 to the petition. Aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed.