HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment will dispose of the aforesaid nine writ petitions and three special appeals which involve for decision the same point, the special appeals are against dismissal of three similar writ petitions.

(2.) The common point involved for decision in all these matters is the liability for payment of passenger tax under the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959; and of special road tax which replaced the passenger tax with effect from Oct. 1, 1982 by insertion of S.4-B in Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1951 by the Amending Act No. 20 of 1982. The substantial requirements attracting the passenger tax/special road tax are the same.

(3.) The material facts on which the point involved has to be decided are a few only. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') is providing free transport facility to its employees and their children for travel from home to the work site or the school and back by utilising buses hired by them from M/s. Laxmi Bus Service the payment made by the Company to the bus owner for use of the buses in this manner and for this purpose only is in accordance with the terms of an agreement. This payment is made on the basis of the number of trips made by the bus or in the words, on the basis of user of the bus irrespective of number of persons travelling therein. The Company had been charging a nominal amount only from the employees to whom the house rent was being paid and not from others who were not being paid any house rent by the Company. This nominal charge has been called administrative charge. However, an undertaking was given on behalf of the Company at the hearing before us that not even nominal charge known as administrative charge will be recovered from these employees hereafter and even the entire amount recovered so far from them would be refunded to them. It is, therefore, undisputed that this facility provided by the Company to its employees and their children for travelling to the work site or school and back home is totally free. It is also admitted that these buses are used only in this manner and are not used by the bus owner or the company for any other purpose and, therefore, no permit was issued for plying these buses as a stage carriage or a contract carriage. It is also admitted that user of these buses in this manner alone is ensured by registration being in the name of the Company. The question is whether on these admitted facts there is any liability for payment of passenger tax or special road tax under the aforesaid statutory provisions. The transport authorities have demanded this tax and hence twelve writ petitions were filed by the Company and the bus owner challenging the demand. Three of these writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of existence of alternative remedy of appeal and they have given rise to the three special appeals. This is how all these twelve matters involve for decision the same point. 3A. We may dispose of at the outset the preliminary objection taken by the Additional Government Advocate in the Special Appeals on the ground of existence of alternative remedy of appeal. It is sufficient to say that the point involved for decision is existence of authority of law to recover the tax demanded, in admitted facts, and, therefore, availability of the alternative remedy of appeal is not sufficient to refuse decision of that point in a writ petition. The preliminary objection is, therefore, rejected.