Writ petitions challenging denial of tax exemption benefits for stage carriages on inter-state routes were dismissed. The Court held that exemption notifications did not cover inter-state routes, following a prior Jaipur Bench decision.
The writ petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
GURLABH SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8096/14 and 27 connected matters)
1
1. GURLABH SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8096/14)
2. VISHNUKUMAR VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
3. JAGDISH KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1509/12)
4. VEER SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7071/14)
5. BHUPENDRA BHAWSAR VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
7. SANJAY KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7293/14)
8. JAGDISH KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7294/14)
9. ANUP KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7295/14)
10. JHUMAR MAL NAHATA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
12. OM PRAKASH BHAWASAR VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
14. DALJEET KOUR VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8099/14)
15. MANOJ KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8100/14)
16. KIRPAL SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8101/14)
17. VIVEK POONIA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8111/14)
18. MOHAN LAL VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8112/14)
19. VIMLA DEVI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8129/14)
20. SEEMA BATRA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8664/14)
21. RAJ KUMAR SINDHI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
22. VISHNU GODARA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8666/14)
23. CHAND MAL VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
GURLABH SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8096/14 and 27 connected matters)
2
24. SMT. MAYA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8826/14)
25. RADHEY SHYAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8832/14)
26. BHERU LAL TANK VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9055/14)
27. GOPI RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9532/14)
28. HARISH SINDHI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9056/14)
Dated:- 23.2.15.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Ms. Suman Choudhary) Mr. R.K.Rathi ) Mr. T.R.Choudhary ) Mr.R.K.Purohit ), for the petitioners.
Mr.S.R.Paliwal, Deputy Government Counsel, for the respondents.
3
GURLABH SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8096/14 and 27 connected matters)
notification dated 6.3.13, the State Government exempted the new stage carriage passenger vehicles purchased on or after 1.4.13 and registered upto 31.3.14 and plying exclusively on rural routes and other routes ( as classified under the provisions of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990) from payment of special road tax.
4
GURLABH SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8096/14 and 27 connected matters)
been passed by the jurisdictional Taxation Officer without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. However, it is not disputed that if the vehicles of the petitioners are not covered by the exemption granted in terms of the notifications dated 9.3.11 and 6.3.13, the petitioners cannot escape the liability of the special road tax exigible under Section 4-B of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that all new stage carriage passenger vehicles, which are purchased and registered during the period specified under the exemption notifications, plying on rural routes and any other routes, are entitled for the benefits of exemption from payment of special road tax and therefore, the benefit available to the petitioners cannot be denied by giving restricted meaning to the words 'other routes' mentioned in the said notifications.
“In the context of aforesaid principles of interpretation of exemption notifications, more particularly with regard fiscal statutes the specific case of respondent State is to be seen. It is that exemption notifications dated 9-3-2011 and 6-3-2013 were for the purpose of incentivising the plying of new buses purchased during the prescribed period on the rural routes otherwise suffering poor quality transport service. In my considered opinion in the context of the object/purpose behind
GURLABH SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8096/14 and 27 connected matters)
5
the two exemption notifications in issue the petitioners' case of exemption notifications attracting to inter-state routes as 'other routes' is not tenable as it is not conceivable that premium and lucrative routes would be clubbed together with the “lowly” rules routes from the point of view of profitability. The words “other routes” as defined in Explanation 4 to Rule 5.5(3) of the 1990 Rules are stated in the Rule itself to be confined to the operation of Rule 5.5 itself and cannot be construed to be a general classification under the 1990 Rules. The 1990 Rules define only rural route and sub-urban routes. A rural route specifically excludes municipality/UIT area of the district headquarter and even the tehsil headquarter, panchayat samiti headquarter, municipality, tow sub division headquarter. A suburban route means any route which the state government in public interest declares as a route and which links district headquarter with the town, which has been developed into an important route by way of industrialisation or by way of organisation. In my considered opinion, in the event the interpretation of petitioners were to succeed, it would entail inclusion of premium and lucrative inter-state within the meaning of “other routes” to the exclusion of lesser lucrative sub-urban routes and even routes lying exclusively within the area of municipality or UIT on both. Such a construction of the words “other routes” for the purpose of exemption notifications in issue would be mechanical and quite plainly even absurd. I am of the considered view that one way or the other the petitioners have not been able to satisfy this court that words “other routes” in notifications dated 9-3-2011 and 6-3-2013 include the premium lucrative inter-state routes, consequent to which buses running thereon and purchased during the prescribed period would be entitled to the benefit of exemption notifications dated 9-3-2011 and 6-3-2013.
There is also no force in the contention of counsel for the petitioners that the letter/order dated 24-7-2014 tantamounts to a withdrawal of exemption notifications dated 9-3-2011 and 6-3-2013 and is hit by promissory estoppel. It is not the case of respondent State that the aforesaid two exemption notifications dated 9-3-2011 and 6-3-2013 were at all applicable to interstate routes or have been withdrawn. Contrarily the case of respondent State is that inter-state routes were never included in the aforesaid two notifications dated 9-3-2011 and 6-3-2013, and the order dated 24-7-2014 is only clarificatory in nature for general directives to the jurisdictional taxation officers i.e. Regional Transport Officers and District Transport Officers. Similarly there is no force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the jurisdictional taxation officers having earlier consciously failed to levy special road tax on vehicle of the petitioner plying under permit granted on inter-state route specifically holding that special road tax was not applicable thereto, a different view cannot now be taken by him under the
GURLABH SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8096/14 and 27 connected matters)
6
prodding of the Additional Transport Commissioner (Taxation). It is trite law that there is not estoppel against statute. Special road tax under Section 4B of the 1951 Act is leviable inter alia on stage carriages including those plying on inter-state routes. Without clear and specific exemption from such statutory liability, the mere fact that such liability was earlier not enforced for one reasons or another cannot be of avail.
In my considered opinion, the counsel for the state is right in the submission that the words “other routes” as defined in clause (d) of Explanation-I of Rule 5.5. (3b) of the Rules of 1990 are not a general classification of routes but only relevant for interpretation of Rule 5.5 of the Rules of 1990 as so clearly stated in the rule itself. Consequently, counsel for the petitioner assessee is unable to satisfy this court in terms of burden on an assessee to strictly establish an exemption notification to its his benefit, that the exemption of 9-3-2011 and 6-3-2013 attracts to buses plying on inter-state routes. This also for reason that such a construction/interpretation categorising the non premium with the premium and lucrative would be an absurdity not attributable to the State and would defeat the very purpose and object of the Exemption Notifications in issue i.e. to incentivize plying of new buses on rural routes.”
GURLABH SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8096/14 and 27 connected matters)
7
(SANGEET LODHA),J.
Aditya/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether notification dated 9.3.11 and 6.3.13 exempting new stage carriages from special road tax covers buses plying on inter-state routes.
Whether the failure of taxation officers to levy tax earlier creates estoppel against the State.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lat Sahab & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶6
3 provisions across 2 enactments
GURLABH SINGH
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
SANGEET LODHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
