BHARAT STEEL TUBES Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in all the eight writ petitions (Noa 6343. 6568, 6569, 6571, 6572, 6573, 6647 and 6648 of 1974) is a Company engaged in the manufacture of steel tubes and pipes. Its factory is located at Ganaur while a number of its employees live at Sonepat, about 24 kilometres away. The company operates a bus to provide transport facilities to the employees living at Sonepat. This is not, however, provided as a part of the contract of employment. Nor is the facility provided free. Bach employee taking advantage of the facility has to pay to the Company Rs. 10 per month. 'but', it is stated in the writ petitions, "the main object of the Company was not to make a profit by running this bus but to give its staff a facility as a measure of ensuring punctuality and smooth and harmonious functioning of the factory. It was a part of various measures adopted by the Company for the Social Welfare and harmony between the employer and the employed. "

(2.) THE Company was called upon to pay tax under the Punjab Passengers and goods Taxation Act. 1952, as amended in Haryana. The Company objected on the ground that it was not engaged in the business of carrying passengers and that, in providing a bus for the transport of its employees, it was not actuated by any 'profit-motive'. In the absence of a 'profit-motive', it was said, the company's bus could not be said to be a vehicle used for the carriage of passengers for 'hire or reward' so as to make it a 'public service vehicle' as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. It was pointed out while the annual expenditure on the bug was about Rs. 15,400, the total receipts from the employees amounted to Rs. 9,000 only. The Company's contention was overruled by the Excise and Taxation Officer and, on appeal, by the Deputy excise and Taxation Commissioner. Both of them followed the decision in the hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 1970-72 Pun LR 193, rendered by one of us (Narula J. as my Lord the Chief Justice then was ). The present writ petitions have been filed questioning the decision of the taxing authorities, and, as may be expected, the correctness of the decision in the hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. State of Haryana is canvassed.

(3.) THE relevant statutory provisions may now be noticed. Section 2 of the punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation Act contains various definitions. It begins with the prefatory admonition that the expressions defined shall have the meanings assigned "unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context". This preface is of considerable importance in the present case, as we shell presently show. The word 'passenger' is defined in Section 2 (f) to mean:-