GUPTA BROTHERS Vs. EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law which arises for determination in these writ petitions is identical. The facts, however, are different but the same can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) In Civil Writ Petition No. 62 of 1982, proceedings were initiated by respondent No. 3 under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 (Act No. 15 of 1955) (hereinafter to be referred as the Goods Taxation Act) and the petitioner was held liable to pay tax at the rate of t2s per quarter from 1974 onwards with respect to his vehicle No. HPU 306. Petitioner carried the matter in appeal before respondent No 2, who on February 23, 19 8, allowed the same vide his order Annexure PA. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 3 preferred revision before respondent No. 1 who on May 18, 1981, passed Annexure PB order, setting aside the order of respondent No. 2 and upholding the order passed on January 2, 1978 by respondent No. 3. Petitioner preferred a review petition against this order before respondent No. 1. On November 22, 1981, the review petition was dismissed vide order Annexure PC. Petitioner has now challenged the orders, Annexure PB and PC as also the proceedings for assessment finalised by respondent No 3 on January 2, 1978 and has sought direction restraining respondents from realising the tax under the provisions of Goods Taxation Act.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle in question was a light vehicle with its laden capacity as 800 Kgs and the same did not require any route permit under the provisions of section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 74 of 1939), which Act has now been replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988). Since matter pertains to the period when 1939 Act was in force, therefore, that Act is being referred to as the Motor Vehicles Act. The vehicle was not being used by the petitioner for hire or reward, The petitioner, who is a manufacturer of Tobacco, sells its manufactured goods to its customers F. O. R. the place of delivery and carries the goods to the shops of retailers without any hire or reward, therefore, no tax was leviable or chargeable under the provisions of the Goods Taxation Act.