AMRIT NAGAR BHAUPURA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. B. Malik in support of this petition and Mr. M.R. Jaiswal, who appears for the respondents.

(2.) THE first petitioner herein is a welfare association of the bus operators and the second petitioner is its member. THE petition is filed to challenge the order dated 15th May, 2006 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Ghaziabad informing the first petitioner-association that the amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2006, introduced in the year 2006, will be brought into force from the date it comes into force. It is to be noted that the slabs for rates of taxation for the motor vehicles under the statute have been changed from time to time. On the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', which came into force with effect from 15th December, 1997, for the purpose of levy of additional tax under Section 6 of the Act, the first four slabs relating to the kilometres were upto 4500, from 4500 to 5700, from 5700 to 7200, and then 7200-9000. By the amendment introduced in the year 2001 by the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2001, the rates of taxation for these and other slabs were altered. In the year 2003, by the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2003 the first three slabs of various kilometres were omitted and in the fourth slab upto 9000 kilometres was substituted. Now in the year 2006, by the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2006, what has been done is that the first slab is upto 5700 kilometres, second slab is 5700 to 7200 kilometres and the third slab is from 7200 to 9000 kilometres. THE rates of tax imposed have also been changed. THE submission of the petitioners is that this amendment made in the year 2006 ought to be treated as a retrospective one and becoming operational from the time the amendment was effected in the year 2003. For this purpose reliance is placed upon the 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' of the Amending Act, 2006 and it is submitted that the provision made in the year 2006 are stated to be in substitution of the slabs and rates that existed in the year 2003. Reliance has also been placed on a dicta from Maxwell on the Interpretation of the Statutes, that the declaratory provisions could be retrospective. As far as this submission is concerned there is no dispute about it. However, it has been laid down time and again that as far as the taxation statutes are concerned, full latitude is available to the legislative authorities and they are always to be treated as prospective unless the statute itself provides otherwise. As for this proposition we refer to paragraph 9 of a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Binani Industries Ltd., Kerala v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes VI Circle, Bangalore & Ors., JT 2007 (5) SC 311, wherein it is held that it is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective effect. In the present case by no such implication we can presume that this amendment is in any way retrospective. THEre is no reason to challenge the order passed by the authorities.