Compulsory lump-sum motor vehicle tax on four-wheeled goods vehicles exceeding 3000 kg and up to 16500 kg, and Rule 42's valuation method, were upheld. The court rejected challenges concerning older vehicles and NCR restrictions, found no arbitrariness, unreasonableness or violation of Article 301, and dismissed all writ petitions.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11858/2019
Aas Mohammad S/o Shri Ruda Khan, aged about 51 years, R/o Patti Katla, Bahadurpur, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(2 of 75)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15876/2017
Dharamveer And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16087/2017
Yogesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus State Of Raj And Anr D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16716/2017 Mohammad Azad And Ors Versus State Of Raj And Ors D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16717/2017 Javed Khan And Anr Versus State Of Raj And Ors D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16968/2017 Brijpal Singh Versus State Of Raj And Anr D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17748/2017 Sanjay Singh And Ors Versus State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
----Petitioner
----Respondent
----Petitioner
----Respondent
----Petitioner
----Respondent
----Petitioner
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18076/2017 Rohtash Singh And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18967/2017 Bheem Singh
----Petitioner
Versus State Of Raj And Anr
(3 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18968/2017 Satyapal Versus State Of Raj And Anr D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23182/2017 Gurdeep Singh Versus State Of Raj And Ors D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 595/2018 Dinesh Kumar Versus State Of Raj And Anr D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 596/2018 Nihal Singh Versus State Of Raj And Anr D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 599/2018 Smt Anju Arora And Ors Versus State Of Raj And Ors D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 794/2018 Khajan Singh Versus State Of Raj And Anr D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 797/2018 Chandra Kant Bansal And Anr Versus State Of Raj And Ors D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1418/2018 Islam
----Petitioner
----Respondent
----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 595/2018 Dinesh Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 596/2018 Nihal Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 599/2018 Smt Anju Arora And Ors ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 794/2018 Khajan Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 797/2018 Chandra Kant Bansal And Anr ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1418/2018 Islam ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors
[CW-11858/2019]
(4 of 75)
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2379/2018
Smt Neelam Gupta ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2456/2018 Jile Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2459/2018 Rohitas Kumar Bhidudi ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2461/2018 Ramdhan Yadav ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2849/2018 Rambir ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2850/2018 Manphool ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3510/2018 Brijesh Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3930/2018 Sandeep Kumar Sharma ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(5 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4303/2018
Virendra Yadav ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4315/2018 Kanwar Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4624/2018 Pappu Khan And Anr ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4625/2018 Subban Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4747/2018 Abdul Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4754/2018 Chandra Bhan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4755/2018 Chandra Bhan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4762/2018 Pradeep Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(6 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4768/2018
| Mukesh Kumar Versus State Of Raj And Anr |
----Petitioner ----Respondent |
|---|---|
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4787/2018 M/s Best Cargo Movers Versus State Of Raj And Ors D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5143/2018 |
----Petitioner ----Respondent |
| Gurvinder Singh Versus State Of Raj And Anr |
----Petitioner ----Respondent |
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5144/2018 | |
| Mohammad Yusuf Khan Versus |
----Petitioner |
| State Of Raj And Ors D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5145/2018 |
----Respondent |
| Sharif Khan Versus |
----Petitioner |
| State Of Raj And Anr | ----Respondent |
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5362/2018 Kailash Kukreja And Ors |
----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| State Of Raj And Ors | ----Respondent |
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5526/2018 | |
| Sant Ram Gurjar | ----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| State Of Raj And Anr | ----Respondent |
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5527/2018 | |
| Dalbir | ----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| State Of Raj And Anr | ----Respondent |
[CW-11858/2019]
(7 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5528/2018
Kashmir Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5529/2018 Nirbhay Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5530/2018 Ashok Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5597/2018 Uday Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5672/2018 Sahab Khan And Anr ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5749/2018 Rohitas ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5750/2018 Kailash Chand ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5751/2018 Sunil Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(8 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5825/2018
Isru And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5829/2018 Aslam Khan And Anr ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5872/2018 Harbhan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5932/2018 Sahid Husain And Ors ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5934/2018 Piyush Goyal ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5938/2018 Anil Kumar And Ors ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5950/2018 Rahul Chugh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5952/2018 Ramjan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(9 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5960/2018 Ravindra Singh And Ors ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5961/2018 Pritam Das ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5962/2018 Harish Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6040/2018 Sushil Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6041/2018 Mukesh Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6152/2018 Jaswant Singh And Ors ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6277/2018 Virendra Kumar And Ors ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Ors ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6411/2018 Ranjot Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Raj And Anr ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(10 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6412/2018
Dhiraj Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6435/2018
Hanif Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6449/2018
Manoj Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6508/2018
Manish
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6509/2018
Tilakraj
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6514/2018
Khatu Shyam Roadway
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6535/2018
Sunil Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6583/2018
Jamsed Khan And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(11 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6587/2018
Arsad And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6604/2018
Charendra Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6605/2018
Chandgi Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6606/2018
Mukesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6770/2018
Subhash Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6771/2018
Rakesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6772/2018
Rakesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6773/2018
Ramniwas Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6826/2018
Pyare Lal Saini
(12 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6827/2018
Taruna Saini
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6878/2018
Manish Kumar Gupta And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7098/2018
Inam Khan And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7160/2018
Komal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7244/2018
Kasam Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7245/2018
Kallu Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7246/2018
Basira Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7290/2018
Vir Singh And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(13 of 75)
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7301/2018
Khurshid Ahmed
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7322/2018
Ajit Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7325/2018
Virendra Kumar Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7328/2018
Ajit Singh Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7366/2018
Praveen Tanwar And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7393/2018
Moja Khan And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7426/2018
Vikas And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7429/2018
Unnas Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(14 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7431/2018
Ajit Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7433/2018
Star Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7454/2018
Star Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7455/2018
Star Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7456/2018
Star Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7457/2018
Star Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7685/2018
Sanjay Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7686/2018
Jamshed And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7701/2018
Mahavir Singh Kaswan
(15 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7791/2018
Yashpal And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7946/2018
Satyapal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7947/2018
Sewa Steels Pvt Ltd
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8050/2018
Mubrik Khan And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8181/2018
Satish Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8327/2018
Amit Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8431/2018
Sikander
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8690/2018
Dalip Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(16 of 75)
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9273/2018
Sandeep Yadav And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9370/2018
Deenu And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9374/2018
Noor Deen Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9728/2018
Phakarudin
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9933/2018
Vikash Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9985/2018
Sher Mohammad
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9986/2018
Mohammad Shakir
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10026/2018
Azad Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(17 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10203/2018
Anand Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10233/2018
Girendra Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10984/2018
Jitendra Kumar And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11124/2018
Mohammad Nanha
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11309/2018
Mubarik Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11310/2018
Mubarik Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11409/2018
Kanaram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11636/2018
Aaris Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11844/2018
Satar
(18 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11845/2018
Surender Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11846/2018
Hanuman
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11887/2018
Kishore Kumar Gangwani And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11890/2018
Ayyub
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12018/2018
Anup Singh And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12029/2018
Surendra Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12093/2018
Pritam Chand And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12285/2018
Ramveer Singh And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(19 of 75)
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12802/2018
Moti Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12803/2018
Natthu Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14007/2018
Hatam Ali S/o Shri Nek Mohammad
----Respondent ----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Transport Commissioner Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14009/2018
Dharam Pal S/o Shri Ram Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Transport Commissioner Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14253/2018
Kharag Singh S/o Shri Soran Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14333/2018
Akram Khan S/o Shri Ayub Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Transport Department
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14505/2018
Veer Singh S/o Sh. Matadeen Tanwar
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Exoffico Secretary, Govt Of Rajasthan,
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14538/2018
Ajay Methi Son Of Ghasi Ram Methi
----Petitioner Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department Secretariat
----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(20 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14616/2018
Suresh Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14789/2018
Narendra Kumar S/o Ram Mehar
----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15118/2018 Ajad Khan S/o Gabbu Khan ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15172/2018 Mubeen Khan S/o Shri Jhabu Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15404/2018 Deendayal S/o Shri Nemi Chand, By Caste Brahmin ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Transport Department ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15773/2018 Naushad Ali S/o Shri Asghar Ali ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15785/2018 Anil Kumar S/o Lehna Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15787/2018 Vinod Kumar S/o Lehna Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15788/2018 Dinesh Kumar S/o Vijendra
[CW-11858/2019]
(21 of 75)
----Petitioner
| Versus The State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15835/2018 Irasad Son Of Ayub Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Departm D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15891/2018 Sagar Transport Company Versus The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex- D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16751/2018 Aspak Khan S/o Shri Hamid Khan Versus |
----Respondent ----Petitioner ent ----Respondent ----Petitioner Officio Secretary ----Respondent ----Petitioner |
|---|---|
| State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17744/2018 Roshanlal S/o Shri Tek Chand Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Transport Dep D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18432/2018 Hajari Lal S/o Shri Shanker Lal |
----Respondent ----Petitioner artment ----Respondent ----Petitioner |
| Versus The State Of Rajasthan |
----Respondent |
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18563/2018 Irfan Son Of Rajak |
|
| Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18990/2018 Bhagwan Singh S/o Maharaj Singh |
----Petitioner ----Respondent ----Petitioner |
| Versus State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19028/2018 Nasru Khan S/o Ibrahim Khan |
----Respondent ----Petitioner |
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(22 of 75)
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20038/2018
Barkatulla Son Of Shri Aalam Khan
----Petitioner
Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20366/2018 Mohabbat Khan Son Of Shri Noor Mohammad Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20543/2018 Shree Dhain Auto Logistics (P) Ltd. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20550/2018 Farukh Khan S/o Shri Hamida Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20648/2018 Rahul S/o Isak, By Caste Meo ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21213/2018 Rajesh Son Of Shri Mohar Singh, By Caste Aheer ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22100/2018 Mukesh Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Transport Department ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22279/2018 Desh Raj Son Of Shri Dalip Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(23 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22602/2018
Aspaq S/o Shri Sirajuddin,
----Petitioner
Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23373/2018 Deewan S/o Shri Harchand ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23474/2018 Faruk Khan S/o Shri Shamsuddin ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23488/2018 Tofeek Mohammad S/o Shri Shahid ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23586/2018 Arsad Son Of Shri Hamid Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23592/2018 Ratan Singh S/o Harphool Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23669/2018 Krishan Kumar Yadav S/o Lal Singh Yadav ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23907/2018 Naveen Singh S/o Hanuman Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23940/2018 Niraj S/o Hanuman Singh
[CW-11858/2019]
(24 of 75)
----Petitioner
| Versus The State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23956/2018 Sansa Devi W/o Ratan Singh Versus |
----Respondent ----Petitioner |
|---|---|
| The State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23959/2018 Nabbu Khan S/o Lokaman Khan Versus The State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24095/2018 |
----Respondent ----Petitioner ----Respondent |
| Kajji Ram S/o Shri Ram Swaroop | ----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24281/2018 Ajay Kumar Son Of Shri Dharampal Versus State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24442/2018 Hakim Khan S/o Hamid Khan |
----Respondent ----Petitioner ----Respondent ----Petitioner |
| Versus The State Of Rajasthan |
----Respondent |
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24552/2018 | |
| Khub Ram Saini S/o Bhoma Ram Saini | ----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex- D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24573/2018 Asar Khan S/o Shri Chhuttan Khan Versus |
Officio Secretary ----Respondent ----Petitioner |
| State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24743/2018 Iliyas Khan Son Of Shri Sahab Khan |
----Respondent ----Petitioner |
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(25 of 75)
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24886/2018
Netram Jat Son Of Shri Sardara Jat
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24899/2018
Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Chhitar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary
----Respondent ----Petitioner ----Respondent ----Petitioner
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24900/2018
Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Chhitar Singh
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25649/2018 Yashpal S/o Ramniwas ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25650/2018 Sanjay Kumar S/o Omprakash ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25651/2018 Nisar Khan Son Of Shri Majeed Khan, By Caste Mev ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25795/2018 Khajan Singh Son Of Shri Deep Chand ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25985/2018 Manju Yadav W/o Omprakash Yadav ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(26 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26003/2018
Nitesh Beni S/o Beni Prasad Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26053/2018
Surendra Pareek S/o Radhe Shyam
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary ----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26103/2018
Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Lilaram Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26451/2018 Manoj Kumar Son Of Shri Ishwar Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26553/2018 Aayush Distributors ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26626/2018 Pradeep Kumar S/o Prahlad Singh, ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26964/2018 Insar S/o Asulup ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26989/2018 Suresh Kumar S/o Shishupal Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27231/2018 Balram S/o Shri Matoli Ram
[CW-11858/2019]
(27 of 75)
----Petitioner
Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27302/2018 Anil Kumar S/o Mamla Ram ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27377/2018 Alisha Sales ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27386/2018 Aaliya Sales, ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27388/2018 Megha Sales ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27496/2018 Ashok Kumar S/o Ramji Das ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27797/2018 Anup Singh Son Of Shri Laxman Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27798/2018 Varis Son Of Shri Rahmat ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27890/2018 Manoj Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Vijay Pal Singh ----Petitioner
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(28 of 75)
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 238/2019
Govind Kumar Sharma S/o Somdutt Sharma Versus
----Petitioner
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 420/2019
Indrapal S/o Suresh Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 678/2019
Radhey Shyam S/o Ghantoli Yadav
----Petitioner ----Respondent
Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 926/2019 Vijay S/o Surjani ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 965/2019 Vikas Yadav S/o Rajendra Yadav ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 967/2019 Mahbub Khan Son Of Nasib Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2019 Ramdhan Yadav S/o Shri Ajit Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 991/2019 Sahid Son Of Shri Isaf, By Caste Mev ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(29 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1033/2019
Ratan Lal Yadav S/o Shri Phool Singh Yadav, ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1236/2019 Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Murari Lal Sharma ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1241/2019 Ramchander Verma S/o Shri Baru Ram ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1374/2019 Raghuvir Singh S/o Shri Ram Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1434/2019 Ravi Shankar S/o Shri Ramji Lal ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Transport Commissioner Cum Ex-Offico Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1445/2019 Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Shish Pal ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Transport Commissioner Cum Ex-Offico Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1446/2019 Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Mahender Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Transport Commissioner Cum Ex-Offico Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1616/2019 Pappu Ram Saini S/o Shri Ganesh Ram ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1617/2019 Rinku Kumar Meena S/o Ram Karan Meena
[CW-11858/2019]
(30 of 75)
----Petitioner
| Versus The State Of Rajasthan |
----Respondent |
|---|---|
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1622/2019 | |
| Mamraj S/o Rama | ----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| The State Of Rajasthan | ----Respondent |
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1629/2019 Manoj Kumar Saini S/o Hiralal Saini Versus The State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1634/2019 |
----Petitioner ----Respondent |
| Mahesh S/o Jormal | ----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| The State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1635/2019 Surendra Kumar Saini S/o Ramjivan Saini Versus |
----Respondent ----Petitioner |
| The State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1670/2019 Rajendra Singh S/o Kehar Singh Versus |
----Respondent ----Petitioner |
| The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1676/2019 |
-Officio Secretary ----Respondent |
| Saini Tempo Transport Company | ----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1851/2019 |
-Officio Secretary ----Respondent |
| Rishipal Son Of Shri Birendra | ----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1996/2019 Sher Singh Son Of Shri Phakir Chand Versus |
----Respondent ----Petitioner |
[CW-11858/2019]
(31 of 75)
State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2002/2019 Yakat Ali S/o Shri Muharu ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2115/2019 Surendra Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2384/2019 Birendra Singh S/o Mahendra Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2514/2019 Sudesh Kumar S/o Desh Raj ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2778/2019 Mustak Son Of Shri Majeed Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3055/2019 Dinesh Kumar S/o Surajbhan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3099/2019 Khem Singh S/o Shri Teekam Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3269/2019 Innas S/o Shri Sahabdeen ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(32 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3344/2019
Deepak Kumar Son Of Shri Deshraj
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3359/2019
Sibba Khan S/o Kanhaiya Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3456/2019
Sapat Khan S/o Shri Kamaru Deen
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3555/2019
Omprakash Yadav S/o Jagram Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3617/2019
Tophik Khan S/o Shri Noor Mohammad
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3911/2019
Hanuman Prasad S/o Shri Suraj Bhan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3912/2019
Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Jaipal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3913/2019
Sohan Lal Saini S/o Suka Ram Saini
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3914/2019
Asru Khan S/o Muhir Khan
[CW-11858/2019]
(33 of 75)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3919/2019
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary ----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3921/2019
Virender Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh State Of Rajasthan
Versus
----Petitioner
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3922/2019
Rafik Khan S/o Noor Mohammad
----Petitioner
Versus The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4055/2019 Shokat Khan Son Of Shri Ayub Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4096/2019 Abdul Kayyum Khan Son Of Shri Chawla ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4237/2019 Ramniwas Yadav S/o Udmiram Yadav ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4256/2019 Jakir Husain Son Of Shri Jasmal Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4055/2019 Shokat Khan Son Of Shri Ayub Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4096/2019 Abdul Kayyum Khan Son Of Shri Chawla ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4237/2019 Ramniwas Yadav S/o Udmiram Yadav ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4256/2019 Jakir Husain Son Of Shri Jasmal Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4263/2019 Mahipal Yadav S/o Shri Chhitar Ram Yadav ----Petitioner
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(34 of 75)
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4436/2019 Naresh Singh S/o Shri Man Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4455/2019 Tota Ram S/o Dharam Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4497/2019 Sumit Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Sharma ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4569/2019 Shoukin Khan S/o Shri Sahid Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4686/2019 Farukh S/o Aasudeen ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4746/2019 Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Dharmpal ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4855/2019 Sanjay Kumar Gupta S/o Brahmanand Gupta ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4860/2019 Salim S/o Shri Nisar Ali ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(35 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4869/2019
Arjun Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4895/2019
Billu S/o Subhash Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4896/2019
Sukhbindra Son Of Shri Sube Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4915/2019
Umar Mohammad S/o Karim
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5008/2019
Sunil Kumar Jat S/o Dalpat Jat
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5077/2019
Dharmendra Kumar S/o Shri Ram Chandra
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5176/2019
Ishak Khan S/o Abdul Karim
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5199/2019
Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Sher Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5254/2019
Jaikam Khan Son Of Shri Sannoo Khan
[CW-11858/2019]
(36 of 75)
----Petitioner
Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5269/2019 Jakir Hussain Son Of Shri Ummar Mohamma ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5282/2019 Mohammad Hanif S/o Shri Bhagu Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5318/2019 Billu Kumar Swami S/o Sh. Ishwar Lal Swami ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5322/2019 Esup Khan S/o Shri Deen Mohammad ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5339/2019 Mahabir Gurjar Son Of Shri Rampat Gurjar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5340/2019 Mohd. Imran S/o Sh. Usman ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5434/2019 Akbar Son Of Shri Ashraf Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5446/2019 Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Khillu ----Petitioner
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(37 of 75)
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5580/2019
Mahipal Singh S/o Shri Manveer Singh State Of Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5634/2019 Anoop Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5653/2019 Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Vidhyadhar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5674/2019 Prakash Chand Son Of Shri Maher Chand ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5787/2019 Jai Singh S/o Kalyan Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5802/2019 Suresh S/o Manohar Lal ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5836/2019 Yakat Ali S/o Shri Muharu Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5866/2019 Sanjay Dutt S/o Meharchand ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(38 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5873/2019
Vikram Singh S/o Banwari Lal Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5888/2019
Sube Singh S/o Shri Makhan Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5894/2019
Manoj Kumar S/o Sohan Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6141/2019
Nasruddin S/o Dhammali
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6147/2019
Rahil Khan S/o Rasid Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6162/2019
Shri Shyam Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6163/2019
Shri Shyam Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6167/2019
Badve Engg. Ltd.-2G
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6172/2019
Shri Shyam Transport Company
[CW-11858/2019]
(39 of 75)
----Petitioner
Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6185/2019 Badve Engg. Ltd.-2G ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6188/2019 Badve Engg. Ltd.-2G ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6209/2019 Juned Khan S/o Sh. Faruk ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6344/2019 Imran Son Of Shri Makasud ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6352/2019 Ved Prakash S/o Shri Suraja Ram ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6463/2019 Waseem S/o Yunush ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6493/2019 Suman Devi W/o Deen Dayal ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6525/2019 Virender Singh Saran S/o Shodan Singh ----Petitioner
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(40 of 75)
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6560/2019 Aasu Khan S/o Saleman Kahn ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6649/2019 Ruddar S/o Imrat ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6656/2019 Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Balram ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6722/2019 Sanjeev Chaudhary S/o Umrao Chaudhary ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6751/2019 Rajkumar Singh S/o Ramotar Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7001/2019 Bhallu Ram S/o Kishori Lal ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7073/2019 Meghshyam S/o Dori ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7092/2019 Vijay S/o Surjani ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(41 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7160/2019
Shamim Ahamed S/o Shri Abdul Raseed
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7176/2019
Ramjan Khan Son Of Shri Chuttali Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7271/2019
Dinkar Sharma S/o Late Satish Kumar Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7464/2019
Raseed Khan S/o Subhan Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7506/2019
Asam S/o Munshi
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7592/2019
Rahis Khan S/o Bhoormal Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7759/2019
Bajrang Singh S/o Shoy Lal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7775/2019
Jaikam Khan S/o Shri Sube Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7788/2019
Bundu Khan S/o Idu Khan
[CW-11858/2019]
(42 of 75)
----Petitioner
| Versus State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7950/2019 Satish Kumar Sharma S/o Girraj Prasad Sharma Versus |
----Respondent ----Petitioner |
|---|---|
| The State Of Rajasthan | ----Respondent |
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8034/2019 Nurdeen Khan S/o Shri Khillu Khan Versus State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8069/2019 |
----Petitioner ----Respondent |
| Jahul Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Versus |
----Petitioner |
| State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8109/2019 Sunil Choudhary Son Of Shri Sukhdev Ram Versus |
----Respondent ----Petitioner |
| The State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8279/2019 Sahun Son Of Shri Asar Khan |
----Respondent ----Petitioner |
| Versus State Of Rajasthan |
----Respondent |
| D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8306/2019 | |
| Tahir Khan S/o Sufeda Khan, | |
| ----Petitioner | |
| Versus | |
| The State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8365/2019 Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Sadhu Ram |
----Respondent ----Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8577/2019 Sunder Lal Son Of Ramkuwar, |
----Respondent ----Petitioner |
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(43 of 75)
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8875/2019 Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Lal Singh ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8889/2019 Sameen Khan S/o Sher Mohammad ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8991/2019 Arshad Khan S/o Shri Basheer Khan, ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9260/2019 Rahis Khan S/o Shri Bhoormal Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9308/2019 Radheshyma Son Of Shri Raj Singh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9356/2019 Mukesh Saini S/o Sanwal Saini ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9893/2019 Sandeep Singh Shekhawat S/o Vikram Singh Shekhawat ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9894/2019 Kaluram Choudhary S/o Sh. Ramniwas Choudhary, ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(44 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10021/2019
S. K. Packaging
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10253/2019
M/s Gaurav Bharat Gas
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10608/2019
Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Haripal
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10777/2019
Nasib Khan S/o Suleman
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10778/2019
Sher Mohammad S/o Nasru Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10832/2019
Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Ram Sharan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10833/2019
Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Ram Sharan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10835/2019
Jai Maa Sherawali Traders
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11099/2019
Randhir Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh
[CW-11858/2019]
(45 of 75)
----Petitioner
Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11152/2019 Sahil S/o Shri Navi Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11202/2019 Shouyab Khan S/o Shri Asar Mohammad ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11229/2019 Suleman S/o Shri Subedar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11258/2019 Pradeep Yadav S/o Shri Rajendra Yadav ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11340/2019 Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Girraj Prasad ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11453/2019 Aariph Khan S/o Shri Subedar Khan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11572/2019 Rajesh Kumar Yadav Son Of Shri Keshu Ram ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11713/2019 Aslup S/o Shri Sahabudeen ----Petitioner
Versus
[CW-11858/2019]
(46 of 75)
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11741/2019
Gyanchand Yadav S/o Gyarsi Lal Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11748/2019
Ratan Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Satyapal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11750/2019 Ummed Singh S/o Shri Satyapal Singh Versus State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11812/2019 Gafur Khan Son Of Shri Suban Khan Versus State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11829/2019 Mehaboob Khan S/o Majid Khan Versus State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11830/2019 Samundra Singh S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Versus State Of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12120/2019 Radhe Shyam S/o. Ram Kumar Yadav
----Respondent
----Petitioner
----Respondent
----Petitioner
----Respondent ----Petitioner ----Respondent ----Petitioner ----Respondent
----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent
[CW-11858/2019]
(47 of 75)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12223/2019
Rajan Singh S/o Shri Diwan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11642/2017
Rajveer Singh Andors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Transport Dep Ors
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Ms.Anita Aggarwal with Mr. Laxmikant Mr. Praneet Sharma Mr. Sameer Jain with Ms. Mahi Yadav Mr. Daksh Pareek & Mr. Arjun Singh Mr. Dhruv Atre, Ms. Sangeeta Sharma Mr. Kuldeep Aswal, Mr. Ashok Kumar Meena Mr. Surendra Singh, Mr. R.P. Garg Mr. Shafat Rahim Khan, Mr. Azad Ahmed, Mr. P.C. Dewanda, Mr. Sushil Pujari, Mr. Sanjay Khan Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav Mr. Vivek Choudhary Mr. Balbeer Singh Beniwal Mr.Kailash Choudhary Ms. Shefali Sharma on behalf of Mr. Lokesh Sharma |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma Mr.Raunak Singhvi & Mr. Darsh Pareek |
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment Reserved on :: 20/07/2019 Judgment Pronounced on :: 22/08/2019
[CW-11858/2019]
(48 of 75)
By the Court (Per Hon’ble The Chief Justice):
[CW-11858/2019]
(49 of 75)
after 1.4.2007 had to compulsorily pay lump sum tax. This was enhanced by notification dated 8.3.2016; while stating that all categories of goods vehicle with gross weight of more than 7500 kgs. and upto 12000 kgs., were included for lump sum tax.
[CW-11858/2019]
(50 of 75)
the same, creating an unreasonable classification particularly which does not take into consideration that the life of a vehicle in Alwar is only 10 years. This feature argue counsel, is because the State overlooked and did not consider that due to the orders of the National Green Tribunal, motor transport vehicles which aged more than 10 years cannot ply in the National Capital Region (NCR) and owners of such vehicles are made to pay higher sums of money for the fewer number of years of the vehicles that are left on road. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that this regional imbalance has resulted in over-classification, which is contrary to Article 14 and renders the tax unreasonable.
[CW-11858/2019]
(51 of 75)
[CW-11858/2019]
(52 of 75)
provisions relating to special road tax. Likewise, Section 4C was enacted in relation to imposition of lump-sum tax.
[CW-11858/2019]
(53 of 75)
means that they can ply their goods vehicles in other parts of the State of Rajasthan or inter-State routes and except NCR- there is no restriction that they cannot ply the aged more than 10 years. Even otherwise, according to the petitioners, the impugned notification operates harshly upon them. It is submitted that harshness is not a ground for challenging the validity of a provision of law. If some people reside in Bharatpur and experience difficulties then that cannot be a ground to hold a law to be arbitrary.
[CW-11858/2019]
(54 of 75)
contention. It was also argued that the legislation, i.e the Act, was upheld in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406, in this regard.
[CW-11858/2019]
(55 of 75)
challenged. Therefore, the contention of the tax being arbitrary or oppressive, is unjustified. Counsel also relied on Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan v Union of India, 2007(2) WLC 716 (DB), a Division Bench judgment of this court, to submit that in Rajasthan too, the court had recognized that the basis of the tax is the load of the vehicle on the road; thus irrespective of the year of its manufacture, the tax would remain constant. Relying on State of West Bengal v Kesoram Industries, 2004(10) SCC 201, it was urged that enactment of a tax levy is entirely different from a regulation; courts would in judicial review adopt a deferential scrutiny in relation to fiscal statutes. It was also argued that in considering the validity of taxation statutes against a complaint of arbitrariness or discrimination, the court would not lightly set aside or interfere with the working of a levy or such statute, unless there is perversity or gross disparity “resulting in clear and hostile discrimination”, as held by the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v State of Bihar, 2018(1) SCC 242.
“ Provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951
3. Exemption (1) The State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette exempt either totally or partially whether prospectively or retrospectively any motor vehicles or class of motor vehicles from the payment of the tax, penalty or interest imposed or charged by or under the provisions of this Act or rules made there under:
Provided that the interest or penalty or both shall be exempted only for the purposes of giving effect to the amnesty schemes of limited duration.
(2)Every notification issued under this section shall be laid before the House of the State Legislature at the session thereof next following, and shall be liable to be rescinded or modified by a resolution of that House and the rescission or modification so made, shall after publication by notification in the
[CW-11858/2019]
(56 of 75)
Official Gazette be deemed to have come into force.
4. Imposition of tax.- (1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act or by the Rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force, there shall be levied and collected on all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State,(a) a tax in respect of such vehicles which are not covered by clause (b), (c), (cc) or (d), at such rates as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette which shall not exceed 10% of the cost of the chassis/vehicle per annum:
Provided that where the rates are not specified, on quarterly 10, half yearly or monthly basis, by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette and if the tax is permissible to be paid quarterly 10,half yearly or monthly, the amount payable shall be equivalent to the one fourth 10[,one half] or one twelfth respectively of the annual rate of tax;
(b) a One Time Tax in the case of non-transport vehicles at such rates as may be notified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette which 11[shall not exceed 16% of the cost of the vehicle/chassis:] Provided that in the addition to One Time Tax there shall be paid by the owner or person having possession or control of a motor vehicle on which onetime tax is payable, any tax or penalty as was payable under this Act for any period prior to the coming into force of the provisions of Chapter V of the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2005 (Act No. 15 of 2005) at such rates as were applicable to such vehicles from time to time Provided further that on every transfer of ownership of motor vehicle mentioned above, an additional one-time tax shall be playable at such rates as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette;
(c) a tax in respect of motor vehicles registered outside the State and using roads in Rajasthan, at such rates, as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette which shall not exceed Rs. 500/- per seat for 7 days or part thereof in case of passenger vehicles and shall not exceed Rs. 250/- per thousand Kg. Gross Vehicle Weight/Registered Laden Weight or part thereof for 30 days or part thereof in case of goods vehicles and shall not exceed Rs. 5000/- per thousand Kg. of Unladen Weight or part thereof for 30 days or part thereof in case of Construction Equipment Vehicles;
(cc) a tax in respect of motor vehicles or motor vehicle chassis temporarily registered and passing through the State using roads in Rajasthan, at
[CW-11858/2019]
(57 of 75)
such rates, as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette which shall not exceed Rs. 5000/-;
(d) a tax on dealers in, or manufacturer of, motor vehicles in respect of such vehicles as are in their possession in the course of his business as such manufacturers, or dealer under the authorisation of a trade certificate granted or deemed to be granted under the Motor Vehicle Rules for the time being in force in the State of Rajasthan, at such rates as may be specified by the State Government by a notification in the Official Gazette which shall not exceed rupees ten thousand for every 50 vehicles or part thereof in respect of three or four wheeled vehicles; and shall not exceed Rs. 10,000/- for every 100 vehicles or part thereof in respect of two wheeled vehicles; and
(e) a onetime tax in respect of transport vehicles at such rates as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette, which shall not exceed 50% of the cost of the vehicle/chassis: Provided that in addition to onetime tax, there shall be paid by the owner or person having possession or control of transport vehicle on which onetime tax is payable any tax or penalty as was payable under this Act for any period prior to the coming into force of the provisions of the Chapter V of the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2005 (Act No. 15 of 2005) at such rates as were applicable to such vehicles from time to time: Provided further that the owner or person having possession or control of transport vehicles shall have option either to pay tax levied under clause (a) or onetime tax levied under clause (e). *******************
4-B. Special Road Tax . - In addition to the tax levied under section 4 and subject to the rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf, there shall be levied and paid to the State Government a special Road Tax on all transport vehicle expect those transport vehicle which have paid lump sum tax payable under section 4-C)] at the rates as may be specified by notification in the Official Gazette, by the State Government which shall not exceed 7 [Rs 2,000/-] per day in respect of passenger vehicle and shall not exceed Rs. 250/- per thousand Kg. of load carrying capacity or part thereof for thirty days in respect of goods vehicles of other States or for vehicle plying on temporary permits of this State, and 8 [not exceeding 5% of the cost] of the chassis/vehicle per month in respect of other vehicles. Explanation.- The cost of the chassis/vehicle for the purpose of computation of tax shall include
[CW-11858/2019]
(58 of 75)
purchase price and such other elements as may be prescribed by the State Government. Provided further that where a motor vehicle other than those which has paid onetime tax under section 4-C is found plying after the surrender of the certificate of registration, the special road tax on such vehicle shall be payable forthwith for the entire period for which such certificate of registration was surrendered, along with a penalty equal to five time the amount of Special Road Tax but no such tax or penalty shall be charged from empty vehicle going for repair or test purposes.
4-C. Imposition of Lump sum tax. - Notwithstanding anything contained in section 4 and section 4-B and subject to the rules as may be made by the State Government there shall be levied and paid to the State Government a lump sum tax on all transport vehicles at the rates as may be specified by the notification in the Official Gazette by the State Government which shall not exceed 50% of the cost of vehicle/chassis: Provided that the owner or person having possession or control of transport vehicle shall have option either to pay tax levied under clause (a) or clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 4 and section 4-B or lump sum tax under section 4-C : Provided further that the State government may by notification in the Official Gazette require the owners or the persons having possession of such class of transport vehicles registered on or after 01.04.2007 as may be specified in the notification to pay lump sum tax under section 4-C instead of tax payable under clause (a) or clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 4 and section 4-B.
****************************
****************
Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules,
42. Cost for the purpose of computation of tax - Cost of the vehicle/chassis shall be arrived at in case:
(a) the vehicle/chassis is purchased in the financial year in which the tax due, by including the elements of taxes and levies in purchase price prevailing on 1st April of the year of purchase.
(b) The vehicle/chassis purchased earlier than the year in which the tax is due by adding the element of notional price increase at the rate of 15 (fifteen) percent per annum compounded annually on the purchase price prevailing on 1st April of the year of purchase of similar type of vehicle:
Provided that the owner of the vehicle/chassis or any person authorized by him in this behalf, may opt
[CW-11858/2019]
(59 of 75)
to have the cost of his vehicle assessed as to be the same as the cost assessed at current price of similar type of vehicle as prevailing on 1st April of the year in which the tax is due:
Provided further that if the original purchase bill is not produced by the vehicle owner, and/or the option of having the cost assessed at the current price is not exercised by the owner, the price of the similar types of vehicles existing as on 1st of April of the year for which the tax is due shall be taken for computation purposes:
Provided also that in case of notional price increase of 15% compounded annually, the cost of the vehicle so arrived at shall not exceed the current cost of similar types or new vehicles in the financial year in which the tax is due:
Provided also that in case of vehicle purchased/registered outside the state or military disposal vehicles, cost shall be as applicable in the year in which the tax is due for the similar type of vehicle of this State.
Explanation (i) Purchase prices for determining the cost for computation of tax shall be as prevailing at Jaipur and if in case the dealer of any vehicle is not available at Jaipur, the cost shall be as prescribed by the Transport Commissioner.
(ii) When under clause (n) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2 of the these rules, similarity is established with more than one vehicle/chassis, then the vehicle/chassis having lower cost shall be taken for the purpose of computation of tax.”
Rule 5.9 of Raj. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990: 5.9. Issue of permit :- (1) The Secretary/Executive Officer of the [State Transport Authority/Regional Transport Authority] shall, intimate the applicant within seven days from the date of order of the [State Transport Authority/Regional Transport Authority] regarding grant or rejection of the application and on receipt of the prescribed obtained form R.S. 5.19 for the permit shall be issued which shall be in one of the following forms:-
(vi) In respect of Private Service vehicle In Form R.S. 5.14 (vii) In respect of Goods Vehicle In Form R.S. 5.15 (viii) In respect of National Permit In Form R.S. 5.16 (ix) In respect of All India Tourist Permit In Form R.S. 5.17 (x) In respect of temporary permit In Form R.S. 5.18 (xi) In respect of cash receipt cum temporary In Form R.S. 5.18 A permit for contract/goods carriage (xii) In respect of a particular educational In Form R.S. 5.18 B institution Bus
[CW-11858/2019]
(60 of 75)
(3) Save in the case of Temporary Permit every permit shall be in two portion A and B. One copy of part A only shall be issued. One copy of part B shall be issued in respect of every vehicle authorised by the permit and where a permit relates to more than one vehicle each such copy shall carry, in addition to the number of permit a separate serial number contained in Brackets after the number of permit. Each such copy shall be sealed and signed by the authority by which the permit is issued and by the authority by which the permit is countersigned.
(4) (3) The holder of a permit shall cause the relevant copy of part B thereof or the Temporary permit, as the case may be, to be carried in Glassed Frame or other suitable container in or fixed to the interior of the vehicle in such a way as to maintain it in a clean and legible condition, readily available for inspection at any time by the authorised person.”
Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
“ 66. Necessity for permits. – (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used :
Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a good carriage either when carrying passengers or not :
Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.
(2) The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for drawing of any trailer or semitrailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:
[Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailer.]”
[CW-11858/2019]
(61 of 75)
_***************_**
_***************_**
Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989:
88. Age of motor vehicle for the purpose of national permit .—(1) No national permit shall be granted in respect of a goods carriage, other than multiaxle vehicle, which is more than -[twelve years] old at any point of time.
(2) No national permit shall be granted for a multiaxle goods carriage which is more than fifteen years old at any point of time.
(3) A national permit shall be deemed to be invalid from the date on which a goods carriage covered by the permit completes fifteen years in case of a multiaxle goods carriage and -[twelve years] where the vehicle is other than a multiaxle goods carriage, unless such goods carriage is replaced.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this rule, the period of 125[twelve years] or fifteen years, as the case may be, shall be computed from the date of initial registration of the motor vehicle covered under its pennit or the prime mover in case of an articulated vehicle.]
(4) No national permit shall be granted in respect of a multi-axle trailer approved to carry a gross vehicle weight of more than 50 tonnes, which is more than 25 years old at any point of time, the period of 25 years being computed from the date of initial registration of the said trailer.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this rule, "multi-axle trailer" means a trailer having more than two axles.
[(5) A national permit shall be in such security printed watermark paper and shall carry such hologram as the State Government or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, issuing such permit, may specify:
Provided that the use of such security printed water-mark paper carrying such hologram shall come into force on or before six months from the date of commencement of the Central Motor Vehicles (Third Amendment) Rules, 2002.”
“17. The short question which arises for consideration in the present case is - whether the High Court was right in holding that with the introduction of the concept of "value" as the basis
[CW-11858/2019]
(62 of 75)
of the tax, the impugned levy fell outside entry 57 of list-II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution.
18. It is well to remember that the State maintains old roads and makes new ones. These roads are at the disposal of those who use motor vehicles either for private purpose or for trade or commerce. India is a cost-push economy. It has high rate of inflation. The costs of maintenance as well as the costs of material used in the maintenance of the roads increases by the day. This naturally costs the State, which has to find funds for making new roads, and for maintenance of those that are in existence. The impugned tax is regulatory and compensatory in nature in the sense that it is imposed to meet the increasing costs of maintenance and upkeep and to that extent it is not plenary. However, as stated above, the limited question is : whether the tax ceases to be compensatory and regulatory with the introduction of "weight-cum-value" index and whether the said index is contrary to the scheme of the said 1974 Act.
19. At the outset it may be noted that depreciation is a function of time and maintenance. In the present case, we are concerned with the "life time tax" which is one time payment spread over the economic life of the vehicle. The said tax is based on time, use and maintenance of the roads. As stated in the judgment of this Court in Bombay Tyre (supra), any standard, which maintains a nexus with the essential character of the levy can be regarded as a valid basis for assessing the measure of the levy. Applying the said test to the present case, we hold that the index of "weight-cum-value" maintains the nexus with the essential character of the levy in question and, therefore, the High Court erred in holding that by introduction of the value of the vehicle as a parameter, the levy ceases to be regulatory and compensatory in nature. It is important to bear in mind that entry 57 of list-II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution refers to taxes on vehicles suitable for use on roads. Under the said entry, a field is provided to the State Legislature to impose the impugned tax in respect of every aspect of a vehicle. When the Constitution provides a field of legislation, it has to be read in the broadest possible terms. When the State is empowered to levy taxes on goods, it is empowered to levy such taxes on every aspect of such goods. Similarly, when the State is empowered to levy tax on the
[CW-11858/2019]
(63 of 75)
vehicle, it is empowered to levy tax on every aspect of the vehicle. Throughout the Constitution, the legislative power relating to taxes and the legislative power relating to general subjects is treated separately and is not subsumed under a general head. Applying the above tests to the present case, we are of the view that the High Court had erred in holding that on account of introduction of "weight-cum-value" index in the third schedule to the Act, the impugned tax had ceased to be regulatory and compensatory and consequently, the said levy fell outside entry 57 list-II.
20. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, U.P. v. Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd. reported in 2004(165)ELT369(SC) , this Court has held that a regulating measure may also contain taxing provisions.
21. In the case of State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors. reported in [2004]266ITR721(SC) , the Constitution Bench of this Court has held that a power to tax may be exercised for the purposes of regulating trade, industry, commerce or any other activity; the purpose of levying such an impost is the exercise of sovereign power to effectuate regulation though incidentally the levy may contribute to the revenue.
22. In the present case, we are satisfied that the levy in question being one time tax continues to be a part of regulatory measure. For administrative reasons in the matter of collection of tax, one time payment of tax is administratively convenient and at the same time, it is also beneficial to the users of the vehicles who do not have to go to the office of the RTO every year to pay the annual taxes. It is also beneficial to the users of the motor vehicles, as they do not have to pay taxes at the increased rates from time to time over the economic life of vehicle as contemplated by Section 3(2) of the Act. Moreover, weight alone may not provide a sufficient parameter/basis for imposition of "life time tax". As an illustration, we may point out that the weight of the Honda CRV Car is 1500 kg. as against the weight of Tata Indigo GLX which weighs 1490 kg. and yet the cost of Honda CRV is Rs. 15,24,396 lacs whereas the price of Tata Indigo is 5,08,651 lacs. Hence, weight index alone may not constitute the basis of "life time tax".
[CW-11858/2019]
(64 of 75)
23. In the circumstances, we reiterate that introduction of "weight-cum-value" index will not make the levy non-regulatory/non-compensatory. Further, under the unamended 1974 Act weight was the basis of the impugned levy as an annual tax. But with the introduction of a "life time tax", the entire future projection spread over the economic life of the vehicle had to be taken into account along with other factors like fall in the value of the rupee, inflation, rising costs of the material, cross subsidy etc. and consequently, it was necessary to introduce the new index of "weight-cum-value" and factors like paying capacity of the owner. In our view, these factors have nexus with the use of the roads over a period of time and hence, the impugned levy fell within entry 57 list-II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution.
24. We also do not find the impugned levy to be discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable so as to violate Article 14 of the Constitution as held by the High Court. In the case of Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors. v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai and Anr. reported in [1986]2SCR700 , this Court held that Article 14 forbids class legislation and not reasonable classification and in order to pass the test of reasonable classification, the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or class of persons that are grouped together from the others left out of that group and that such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
25. In the case of The State of Gujarat and Anr. etc. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad and Anr. etc. reported in [1974]3SCR760 , this Court held that where size is an index, discrimination between large and small is permissible. Article 14 does not require that every regulatory statute should apply to each and everyone equally in the same business.
26. Similarly, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya (supra), this Court has held that taxing of a company owned vehicle at three times the rate payable by an individual owner did not make the enactment violative of Article 14 as the Legislature had the power to distribute the tax burden in a flexible manner and the Court would not interfere with the same.
[CW-11858/2019]
(65 of 75)
27. There is no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent herein that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by imposing higher burden of tax on vehicles owned by "others" vis-a-vis the vehicles owned by the "individuals" in part-I of the third schedule. We do not find merit in this argument. Firstly, as held by this Court in the case of Bombay Tyre (supra), levy is a constitutional concept whereas collection of a tax as well as incidence of tax comes within the statutory measure. The mode of collection or the incidence of tax cannot be the conclusive test to decide the nature of the levy. The nature of the levy is a concept different from the mode of collection of tax. Levy is a constitutional concept whereas mode of collection of tax is a statutory concept. They stand on different footings. Secondly, it is important to remember the words of Lord Wilberforce, quoted with approval by House of Lords in the case of Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd. v. Mawson (Inspector of Taxes) reported in (2005) 1 All ER 97 stating that "a tax is generally imposed by reference to economic activities or transactions which exist in the real world". When an economic activity is to be valued, it is open to the law maker to take into account various factors including the paying capacity of the user, the value of the vehicle, the economic life of the vehicle etc. Lastly, in the present case, for the vehicles registered before 1.7.1998 the option between annual and one time tax is retained.”
[CW-11858/2019]
(66 of 75)
lump sum tax payment optional for all transport vehicles. By Rajasthan Act No. 4 of 2007, the second proviso was added (to Section 4C) which made it obligatory for payment of lump sum tax in respect of all transport vehicles registered on or after 01.04.2007. This again, was dependent upon the introduction of such system of lump sum taxation by the State, through Official Gazette.
[CW-11858/2019]
(67 of 75)
wheeled vehicles weighing more than 3000 kgs. (3 tons) and up to 16500 kgs. (16.5 tons) are to pay lump sum tax.
“Similar contentions as to the unreasonableness of the restrictions which the imposition of the impugned tax was said to bring about on the petitioners’ freedom of trade and business and the adverse effect of this tax on a significant area of national economy generally and the Tourism Industry in particular have been considered in the petitions assailing the vires of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987. It is now well settled that a very wide latitude is available to the legislature in the matter of classification of objects, persons and things for purposes of taxation. It must need to be so, having regard to the complexities involved in the formulation of a taxation policy. Taxation is not now a mere source of raising money to defray expenses of Government. It is a recognised fiscal tool to achieve fiscal and social objectives. The differentia of classification presupposes and
[CW-11858/2019]
(68 of 75)
proceeds on the premise that it distinguishes and keeps apart as a distinct class hotels with higher economic status reflected in one of the indicia of such economic superiority. The presumption of constitutionality has not been dislodged by the petitioners by demonstrating how even hotels, not brought into the class, have also equal or higher chargeable receipts and how the assumption of economic superiority of hotels to which the Act is applied is erroneous or irrelevant.”
“22. The need for judicial restraint with regard to recommendations of Expert Committees, more particularly in matters relating to finance and economics, was considered in BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India [BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333] , it was held: (SCC pp. 372 & 382, paras 65 & 98)
“65. … Nevertheless, contention is sought to be raised that the method of valuation was faulty, some assets were not taken into consideration and that Rs 551.5 crores offered by M/s Sterlite did not represent the correct value of 51% shares of the Company along with its controlling interest. It is not for this Court to consider whether the price which was fixed by the Evaluation Committee at Rs 551.5 crores was correct or not. What has to be seen in exercise of judicial review of administrative action is to examine whether proper procedure has been followed and whether the reserve price which was fixed is arbitrarily low and on the face of it, unacceptable.
***
98. In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself.”
19 . It needs no emphasis that complex executive decisions in economic matters are necessarily empiric and based on experimentation. Its validity cannot be tested on any rigid principles
[CW-11858/2019]
(69 of 75)
or the application of any straitjacket formula. The Court while adjudging the validity of an executive decision in economic matters must grant a certain measure of freedom or play in the joints to the executive. Not mere errors, but only palpably arbitrary decisions alone can be interfered with in judicial review. The recommendation made by a statutory body consisting of domain experts not being to the satisfaction of the State Government is an entirely different matter with which we were not concerned in the present discussion. The Court should therefore be loath to interfere with such recommendation of an expert body, and accepted by the Government, unless it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity or violates any provisions of the law under which it is constituted. The Court cannot sit as an appellate authority, entering the arena of disputed facts and figures to opine with regard to manner in which TAFRC ought to have proceeded without any finding of any violation of rules or procedure. If a statutory body has not exercised jurisdiction properly the only option is to remand the matter for fresh consideration and not to usurp the powers of the authority.”
In Indian Oil Corporation, the court was equally forthright; it held that sans perversity or palpable arbitrariness or gross disparity “resulting in clear and hostile discrimination” courts are to desist from interdicting tax legislation on the ground of unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
27. The next question is whether the imposition of a lump sum taxation regime, on old vehicles (which have already been subjected to annual taxation previously) is arbitrary or unreasonable. One of the serious arguments made was that earlier, the owner or taxpayer had the choice of paying quarterly, half yearly or annually. Such owner/taxpayer had exercised that choice and paid dues for a long time. The argument was that now, subjecting such old vehicles to lump sum taxation is unreasonable.
[CW-11858/2019]
(70 of 75)
premise for the argument is a definitive life span of motor vehicles. As pointed out on behalf of the State, the restriction of use, of vehicles aged more than 15 years is not universal, but rather confined to those which are plying under national permits, in terms of Rule 88. The other restriction is in some parts of Rajasthan where the NGT’s order, banning the plying of such vehicles within the concerned districts (as they form part of NCR) are enforced. However, these two instances are referred by way of exception. In the case of all other vehicles, this Court notices that the material on record- in the form of tabular chart produced by the petitioner (in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4103/2017, Krishan Gopal Bansal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), reveals that State has taken care to ensure that value of the vehicles is determined according to its age. The tabular chart- which is part of the State’s notification, in-fact determines that the value for one year old vehicles is higher, whereas those for five years and above is lowest (almost 75% lower than those which are one year or older but less than five years). For the facility of reference, the said tabular chart in respect of various vehicles is reproduced as follows:-
“REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER BHARATPUR
LIST OF GOODS VEHICLE GVW 12001 TO 16500
| SR. NO. |
TYPE OF VEHICL |
GVW | WHE ELBA |
COST | LST | SURCH ARGE |
LST + SURCH |
1 YEAR |
2 YEAR |
3 YEAR |
4 YEAR |
5 AND MORE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | SE | ARGE | OLD VEH. |
OLD VEH. |
OLD VEH. |
OLD VEH. |
THAN 5 YEAR OLD VEH. |
|||||
| 1 | LPT 1613/ 42 |
_16200 _ | 5200 | 1699000 | _186890 _ | 18689 | _205579 _ | _185021 _ | _164463 _ | _143905 _ | _123347 _ | 102790 |
| 2 | LPT 1615/62 TC E3 |
_16200 _ | 6200 | 1880000 | _206800 _ | 20680 | _227480 _ | _204732 _ | _181984 _ | _159236 _ | _136488 _ | 113740 |
| 3 | LPT 1613/ 48 |
_16200 _ | 4855 | 1751000 | _192610 _ | 19261 | _211871 _ | _190684 _ | _169497 _ | _148310 _ | _127123 _ | 105936 |
| 4 | LPT 1109/ 36 |
_12990 _ | 3600 | 1620000 | _178200 _ | 17820 | _196020 _ | _176418 _ | _156816 _ | _137214 _ | _117612 _ | 98010 |
| 5 | LPT 1109/ 42 |
_12990 _ | 4200 | 1690000 | _185900 _ | 18590 | _204490 _ | _184041 _ | _163592 _ | _143143 _ | _122694 _ | 102245 |
| 6 | LPT 1109/48 |
_12990 _ | 4800 | 1743000 | _191730 _ | 19173 | _210903 _ | _189813 _ | _168722 _ | _147632 _ | _126542 _ | 105452 |
| 7 | EICHER HCV 20.16 |
_16200 _ | 5340 | 2063000 | _226930 _ | 22693 | _249623 _ | _224661 _ | _199698 _ | _174736 _ | _149774 _ | 124812 |
[CW-11858/2019]
(71 of 75)
| 8 | EICHER TERRA 16 HDR |
_16000 _ | 3485 | 1955000 | _215050 _ | 21505 | _236555 _ | _212900 _ | _189244 _ | _165589 _ | _141933 _ | 118278 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | EICHER TERRA 16 XP |
_16000 _ | 3485 | 2000000 | _220000 _ | 22000 | _242000 _ | _217800 _ | _193600 _ | _169400 _ | _145200 _ | 121000 |
| 10 | EICHER 20.16 AVS |
_16000 _ | 5340 | 2050000 | _225500 _ | 22550 | _248050 _ | _223245 _ | _198440 _ | _173635 _ | _148830 _ | 124025 |
(72 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
Again, in Nazeria Motor Service v. State of A.P. , (1969) 2 SCC 576, the ground of geographical basis for discrimination, a basis for challenge, was turned down:
[CW-11858/2019]
(73 of 75)
“8. This is sufficient to dispose of the challenge under Article 19(1)(g) as well. We may in this connection refer briefly to the conclusion of the High Court which was reached on a consideration of the affidavits filed before it. It has been found that there is no material which would warrant the conclusion that the increase in the surcharge of the fares and freight contemplated by the impugned Validating Act would constitute an impediment to the trade. The utmost that could be said was that it would result in the diminution of profits. Even on the assumption that the profits would be diminished or greatly reduced it cannot be held that there is any infringement of Article (19) (1)(g).
9. Coming to the attack on the ground of violation of Article 14 reference may be made to the background relating to taxation of passengers and goods carried in motor vehicles in the State prior to the formation of Andhra Pradesh. It appears that there was no law in the erstwhile Hyderabad State imposing any tax on passengers and goods. After the merger of Telengana and Andhra areas the laws in operation in the Telengana region continued to remain in force by virtue of the provisions of Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. By Act 10 of 1958 the State of Andhra Pradesh amended Act 12 of 1952 inter alia extending that Act, to the Telengana area. This Act (Act 10 of 1958) also amended the principal Act by adding Section 19 according to which the Government could grant an exemption by means of a notification in respect of any motor vehicle running in a particular area. On November 4, 1961 a notification was issued exempting passengers, luggage and goods carried in stage carriages from payment of tax under the aforesaid Act within the Telengana area. There can be no manner of doubt that this exemption was given to the operators in the Telengana region for the reason that before the extension of the parent Act to this area no tax similar to the one levied under the parent Act was payable in that area and that this exemption was granted under a different enactment. It is apparent that for these reasons the challenge under Article 14 cannot succeed. The same is the position with regard to the tax payable by the appellants and that which the transporters having permits for inter-State routes have to pay. As has been pointed out in the affidavits filed on behalf of the State, the laws in the two States, Madras and Andhra Pradesh are different and persons having primary permits from Madras are naturally governed by the laws operating in that State. No question of discrimination
[CW-11858/2019]
(74 of 75)
can arise when taxes are being imposed under two different sets of laws in different States or geographical areas.”
“8. As regards rule 42 it was submitted that the manner in which the cost of vehicle is calculated for the purpose of computation of tax is arbitrary. It was submitted that whereas under clause (a) the cost is calculated with reference to the vehicle/chassis purchased in the financial year in which the tax due by including the elements of taxes and levies in purchase price prevailing on 1st April of the year of purchase, in the case of vehicle/chassis purchased earlier than the year in which the tax is due, it is calculated by adding the element of notional price increase at the rate of fifteen percent per annum compounded annually on the purchase price prevailing on 1st April of the year of purchase of similar type of vehicle which is arbitrary. The submission overlooks the first proviso to rule 42 which gives option to the owner of the vehicle/chassis or any person authorised by him to have the cost of his vehicle assessed “as to be the same as the cost assessed at current price of similar type of vehicle as prevailing on 1st
[CW-11858/2019]
(75 of 75)
April of the year in which the tax is due.” The owner or the person authorised in that behalf may thus opt to have the cost assessed at current price of vehicle and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that the calculation of the cost by adding notional price increase at the rate of fifteen percent per annum, would appear to be misconceived. It is to be kept in mind that the basis of the tax is the load of the vehicle on the road and, therefore, irrespective of the year of manufacture/purchase of the vehicle, the incidence of tax would not differ.”
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR /9 to 384, s/422, 423, c-1
3 issues framed by the court
Was compulsory lump-sum motor vehicle taxation based on weight and value arbitrary or unreasonable, including for older vehicles previously taxed annually?
Did the uniform levy discriminate against vehicle owners in NCR districts subject to restrictions on vehicles older than ten years?
Was Rule 42's vehicle valuation method arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 301?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶391
Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406 · Who else cites this
State of Tamil Nadu v M. Krishnappan & Anr.Followed¶524
State of Tamil Nadu v M. Krishnappan & Anr., 2005(4) SCC 53 · Who else cites this
Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan v Union of IndiaFollowed¶565
Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan v Union of India, 2007(2) WLC 716 (DB)
State of West Bengal v Kesoram IndustriesReferred¶428
State of West Bengal v Kesoram Industries, 2004(10) SCC 201 · Who else cites this
Indian Oil Corporation v State of BiharRelied on¶538
Indian Oil Corporation v State of Bihar, 2018(1) SCC 242 · Who else cites this
Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶524
Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. v. Union of India , (1989) 3 SCC 698 · Who else cites this
Vasavi Engg. College Parents Assn. v. State of TelanganaRelied on¶529
Vasavi Engg. College Parents Assn. v. State of Telangana , (2019) 7 SCC 172 · Who else cites this
Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agrl. ITORelied on¶554
Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agrl. ITO, AIR 1963 SC 591 · Who else cites this
Nazeria Motor Service v. State of A.P.Relied on¶556
Nazeria Motor Service v. State of A.P. , (1969) 2 SCC 576 · Who else cites this
8 provisions across 4 enactments
Aas Mohammad
State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
Joint Secretary, Transport Department, Jaipur
Regional Transport Office, through Regional Transport Officer, Alwar
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
