PUNJAB TRAVEL COMPANY AHMEDABAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the Notification/Office order dated 31-3-97/29-1-99 issued by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, which provides for charging the road tax from the motor vehicles having authorisation under the Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators) Rules, 1993 (for short, "the Rules, 1993") and restrain them to charge the road tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (for short, "the Act, 1951") and the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Act, 1951 provides for imposition of road tax on the vehicles used or kept for use in the State of Rajasthan. Section 4 of the said Act is a charging section and provides for imposition of road tax on the vehicles at such rate, not exceeding that specified in the Schedule, as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the official gazette. Amount of tax is fixed and prescribed under the Rules and the notification issued by the Government from time to time under the Act of 1951. Petitioner claims to have an authorisation from other State under the said Rules, 1993, and as it has the authorisation even to ply its vehicles in the territory of Rajasthan, it is contended that the tax cannot be levied under the Act of 1951 for the reason that a meeting was held on 24-4-92 under the auspices of Ministry of Transport, which considered the grievances of the tourist permit-holders regarding the delay and inconvenience caused by checking at every stage and to develop the tourism in the country and it resolved that a separate category of authorisation be allowed throughout the country only on recognised tour circuits and a fixed composite fee may be charged from the vehicles covered by the Scheme. It also recommended for re-defining the term "authorisation" and recommended that the Draft Scheme - prepared be circulated along with the minutes of the meeting to the States for further consideration. In the said meeting, the various representatives of the States, including the Additional Transport Commissioner of Rajasthan, participated and in consequence of the Minutes of the meeting, the said Rules, 1993 came into existence and the further communication dated 3-8-93 (Annexure-5) provided that a fixed composite fee was to be charged according to the seating capacity of the vehicle. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that as the State of Rajasthan had been a signatory to the Minutes of the meeting and has agreed to charge the said composite fee which is Rupees 12,000/- per quarter per State, other than the home State, for a omnibus of 14 to 35 seats, it should be restrained from charging the tax under the Act, 1951.

(3.) Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the respondents, has most vociferously opposed the said averment contending that the State of Rajasthan has not accepted the said recommendations and unless the Act of 1951 or the Rules framed thereunder are amended giving effect to the said Minutes, the question of charging something less than the amount provided under the Act/Rules/Notification does not arise and petitioner is not entitled to maintain the writ petition.