RAJENDRA PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point raised in this petition is very short. THE petitioners hold separate permits for operating on diffe rent routes in the district of Meerut. THEreafter, they applied for amalgamation of routes which were separate with the result that they started operating jointly on all the routes. THE various route a on which the petitioners plied were classified either as special routes or class 'A' 'B' and 'C' routes, and before the amalgamation, the pe titioners used to pay the tax appropriate to the route on which they were plying. After the amalgamation of the routes, the -respondents started demanding tax at the rate appropriate to special routes. THE petitioners object to this levy. THE charge of taxes for the entire route at the rate applicable for special routes is sought to be justified by the taxing authorities by explanation 1 Part C of the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Taxa tion Act, 1935. This provision runs: - "1. Where any motor vehicle is used for various purposes or in such a manner as to cause it to be taxable under more than one Article of this Schedule, the tax is payable on the highest appropriate rate." In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that the various routes still stand classified separately and there has been no fresh; classification of the routes. As has been noticed earlier the charge is sought to be justified solely by reference to this provision on the ground that a portion of the route on which these petitioners ply is classified as special class route. Now, before resort can be had to this provision, the motor vehicle concerned should be used for more purposes than one or in such a manner as to make it taxable under more than one Article of the Schedule to the Act. It is not contend ed that the buses of the petitioners are being used for purposes other than conveying passengers. Thus the levy cannot be justified under the first part of Explanation 1. It is also does not get any support from the second part of this provision, for the taxes levied on these buses fall under only one Article of the Schedule i.e. Article V Part 'B'. No foundation has been laid in the counter-affidavit for raising a contention that the buses operated by the petitioners are taxable under any other Article of the Schedule. Thus the impugned de mand cannot be justified by reference Explanation 1 Part 'C' to the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. In case the respon dents desire to impose a higher rate of tax on account of the fact that routes have been amalgamated, they should follow the proper procedure for classification of the amalgamated routes as special class route, and it is only then that the demand can be justified. In view of this conclusion, the writ petition is allowed. THE respondents are restrained from realising tax from the petitioners treating the entire route as a special route. THEre is no order as to costs.