BHARAT BHOOSHAN CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Levy of additional tax under the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners, who are as many as 23, are tempo owners who were plying their tempos (contract carriages) on temporary permits in Gwalior city. The registered seating capacity of their tempos is 7 + 1, i.e. seven passengers plus a driver. The temporary permit under which the petitioners plied their tempos contained a condition that not more than six passengers shall be carried in the tempo. The R.T.O. (Tax Officer), Gwalior assessed additional tax payable under Section 3-A of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 on the tempos of the petitioners vide Assessment Orders Annexures 26 and 28 to 49. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order petitioner No. l Bharat Bhooshan Chawla filed an appeal before Appellate Authority - Transport Commissioner, Gwalior. His appeal was however dismissed, holding that additional tax was properly levied (See Annexure 27). Seeing the fate of the appeal filed by the petitioner No. l, the other petitioners, according to them, thought it futile to file appeals. All the petitioners have now combined and filed the present writ petition challenging the levy of additional tax.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that under the charging provision, i.e. Section 3-A of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 'additional tax' is it, viable on all public service vehicles whose seating capacity exceeds six passengers excluding the driver and the conductor. Speaking differently, if the seating capacity of any public service vehicle does not exceed six, the additional tax is not leviable. The temporary permits under which the petitioners were plying their tempos contained a condition that the permit-holder shall not carry more than six passengers in his tempo. In view of this condition in the permit, it was proper to treat that the seating capacity of the tempos of the petitioners was not exceeding six, thereby they were exempt from payment of additional tax. This position was contested by the State of M.P., among other respondents. It was stated that the registered seating capacity of the tempos of the petitioners was 7 + 1. The seating capacity was thus exceeding six passengers and, therefore, additional tax was properly levied on the tempos of the petitioners. It was further stated that the petitioners at the time of making applications for temporary permits, had misrepresented in their applications that the registered seating capacity of their tempos was 6 + 1. This explained why their temporary permits stated that they would not carry more than six passengers in their tempos. The additional tax was leviable on the 'seating capacity' of the vehicle, which admittedly was exceeding six, i.e. 7 + 1 and, therefore, the additional tax was properly leviable from the petitioners.