VIDYA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition No. 1025 of 2001 (Tax) and in all the connected writ petitions, common questions of facts and law are involved and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2001 (Tax) is being treated as the leading case, and the final decision in all other connected writ petitions will be governed by the decision in this writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2001 (Tax)).

(2.) The writ petitioners are stage carriage operators. The petitioners are challenging the validity of amendment in S. 6 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby S.6(1-A), has been added to it on the grounds that (a) the State Legislature is not competent to make this enactment; (b) the amendment is repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the Act; (c) assent of the President under Article 254 (2) of the Constitution of India has not been obtained; and (d) the impugned enactment is punitive in nature.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that tax under the Act has been enacted by the State Legislature in exercise of power conferred by Entries 56 and 57 of the State List of VII th Schedule to the Constitution. Entry 56 relates to tax on goods and passengers carried on road or on inland waterways whereas Entry 57 relates to tax on vehicles whether mechanically propelled or not; suitable for use on roads, including tram-car subject to the provisions of Entry 35 of List III. The case of the petitioners is that the tax on Motor Vehicles is compensatory in nature and revenue earned by such imposition of tax is spent by the State in the construction and maintenance of roads to facilitate use of public place by motor vehicles. Thus, Entries 56 and 57 empower the State Government to legislate on the subject in case of use of public place by a vehicle. However, these Entries do not empower the State Government to levy additional tax. The words "passenger carried" used in Entry 56 presuppose use of public road and the words "tax on vehicles whether mechanically propelled or not suitable for use On roads" pre- suppose use of vehicles on roads. According to the petitioners, this view is fortified by decisions of apex Court in Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. v. The Regional Transport Officer Bellary (Mysore) AIR 1975 SC 17 (1975 Tax LR 1208) and State of Mysore v. Sundaram Motors Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1980 SC 148.