UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition, the Union of India through Railway Department, had challenged the imposition of Road-tax under S. 13 (1) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and R. 8 (i) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), on the motor vehicles owned by the Northern Railway Workshop, Amritsar, mainly on the ground that these vehicles being the property of the Central Government are not liable to any tax under Art. 285 (1) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IN brief, the relevant facts are that the District Transport Officer, Amritsar, vide impugned order, Annexure P-2, imposed tax on the motor vehicles of the Railway Department under R. 8 (i) of the Rules framed under S. 13 of the Act, by holding that the Adaptation; of Laws Order, 1950, protects the lax already imposed at the time of the commencement of the Constitution of India. Being aggrieved against that order, the Union of India went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Collector, Amritsar, vide order Annexure P-3, dated 17th November, 1977. The Union of India then filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullun-dur, on the wrong assumption that such an appeal was maintainable under S. 12 of the Act, but the learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal by holding that it will not be legal for him to interfere in the impugned order in second appeal.

(3.) THE Union of India then invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India through this writ petition, mainly on the ground that the Central Government is not liable to pay any tax on the vehicles under Art. 285 (1) of the Constitution. It was further maintained that the provisions of the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, could not override the provisions of the Constitution, especially when no such tax at any time earlier has been claimed or paid by the petitioner on its motor vehicles. In the alternative, it was averred that R. 8 (i) of the Rules only makes the motor vehicles exigible which are used for commercial purposes and the vehicles in question being simply used for giving facility to its employees without charging any fair, cannot be said to be used for commercial purposes.