Dismissed

Deputy Controller of Stores, Nw Railway v. C.T.O,Spl.Circle II Jodhpur

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2023CR/383/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an entry tax levy on vehicles belonging to the Union of India. The High Court upheld the tax under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, rejecting the argument that Article 285 of the Constitution exempted the Union.

What the court decided

AI extract

Deputy Controller of Stores, Nw Railway Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:32886]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 383/2006

¶4

Deputy Controller of Stores, NW Railway

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

C.T.O. Spl. Circle II Jodhpur

¶8

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. B.P. Bohra
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Hemant Dutt

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶10

Order

¶11

05/10/2023

¶12

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 27.03.2006 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board in appeal No.139/2005/Jodhpur whereby the appeal against the order dated 01.10.2004 passed by the First Appellate Authority, that is, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed.

¶13

The dispute is regarding the order dated 20.10.2003 passed by the Assessing Authority whereby entry tax on the vehicles imported by petitioner-Union of India was determined. Vide the said order, the Assessing Authority held the petitioner liable to tax of Rs.2,82,204/- qua three vehicles valuing to Rs.13,23,594/-. The said order of the Assessing Authority was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed and the order of the Assessing Authority was affirmed and further appeal as preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Tax Board.

[2023:RJ-JD:32886]

[CR-383/2006]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that levy of the entry tax by the Department in terms of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act of 1988’) is totally in contravention to Article 285 of the Constitution of India which specifically provides that the property of the Union shall be exempted from all taxes imposed by the State or by any authority within the State except if provided under any law. Learned counsel submitted that reliance of the Tax Board on the case of Garrison Engineer (Project-I)...vs. State and Ors., RLW 2003 (4) Raj. 2310 was totally erroneous as in the said matter, the dispute was regarding the tax on sale of goods and hence, the ratio of Garrison Engineer (supra) could not have been applied to the present matter.

¶18

In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Union of India vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No.2577/1979) decided on 13.09.1989 and affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in [1990] 79 STC 437 (SC) (neutral citation) on 30.08.1990.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order impugned is perfectly in consonance with the Act of 1988 and in terms of the said Act, the entry tax was very much leviable even on the vehicles owned by the Union.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶21

Section 2 (1)(f) of the Act of 1988 defines a person as under:

¶22

“(f) “person” includes any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:32886]

[CR-383/2006]

also a Hindu undivided Family, a firm, a local authority, the Government of any State or Union Territory; ”

¶27

A bare perusal of the above definition clarifies that the Government of any State or Union Territory also falls within the definition of ‘person’ and in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1988, a tax on the purchase value of the motor vehicle of which an entry is effected into a local area, is subject to levy of the tax. Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1988 provides as under:

¶28

“(1)There shall be levied and collected a tax on the purchase value of a motor vehicle, and entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939), at such rate or rates as may be notified by the State Government from time to time but not exceeding the rates notified for motor vehicles under section 5 of the RST Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 29 of 1954) or fifteen percent of the purchase value of a motor vehicle, whichever is less:

¶29

Provided that no tax shall be levied and collected in respect of a motor vehicle which was registered in any Union Territory or any other State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939) for a period of fifteen months or more before the date on which it is liable to be registered in the State under the said Act.”

¶30

In view of the above provision, it is clear that the tax was leviable even on the vehicles owned by the Union. So far as the judgment in the case of Union of India vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that was a matter wherein the rules as framed by the State of Punjab for imposition of tax on motor vehicles specifically provided for an exemption from liability to pay the tax in respect of the motor vehicles pertaining to the Central Government including those of the Railways. The said clause provided a specific exception wherein the exemption was not to be

[2023:RJ-JD:32886]

[CR-383/2006]

(4 of 4)

granted to the vehicles used for commercial purposes. It is only while interpreting the said clause that the Court reached to a conclusion that the vehicle in question therein was not used for commercial purposes and was hence entitled to exemption.

¶35

The ratio of the above judgment would definitely not apply to the present matter as herein there is no clause of exemption in the Act of 1988. Though, the Act provides that the State may grant an exemption but learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any provision of law which provides for any such exemption.

¶36

So far as the averment of learned counsel for the petitioner that the levy of tax was in contravention to Article 285 of the Constitution of India is concerned, firstly , the vires of provisions of the Act of 1988 is not under challenge in the present revision petition and secondly, even if the same would have been under challenge, this Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could not have entertained any such plea.

¶37

In view of the above observations, no question of law can be said to emerge out of the order of Tax Board and therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned and the revision petition is hence, dismissed .

¶38

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶39

69-T.Singh/-

Deputy Controller of Stores, Nw Railway v. C.T.O,Spl.Circle II Jodhpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Deputy Controller of Stores, Nw Railway v. C.T.O,Spl.Circle II Jodhpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kothari Bros Vs Madan Lal and Anr.

Sonali Vs Mangi Lal

C.T.O.Circle C Jodhpur Vs M/S Kalpatru Theater Jodhpur

Narayanlal Vs Kesar Singh

Khinvraj Vs Baldev Ram

Jaanat Bai Vs Abdul Majid