Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

Tax on Passengers and Goods Carried by Road Validated: The Incidence of the Tax Continues to Be on the Passengers - Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the validity of the Act of 1955, as amended by the Amendment and Validation Act of 1997, which imposes a tax on passengers and goods carried by road in motor vehicles. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Legislative Competence: The Court held that the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly possessed the legislative competence under Article 246, read with Entry 56 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, to enact the Act of 1955 and the Amendment and Validation Act of 1997.

Definition of 'Business': The Court observed that the definition of 'business' has been expanded to include not just the business of carrying passengers and goods but also any trade, commerce, manufacture, or concern. "The definition of ‘business’ as amended has the widest amplitude and includes any trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern," the Court noted.

Tax Incidence: "The incidence of the tax continues to be on the passengers who travel in the buses or other vehicles of the appellants irrespective of whether they travel gratis or are paying any fare," the Court clarified.

Liability to Pay Tax: The Court ruled that the appellants should be made liable to pay the tax w.e.f. 01.04.2023, the current financial year onwards, and not for the period prior thereto.

Public Sector Organizations: The Court took into consideration that the appellants are public sector organizations engaged in hydro-power and irrigation projects, providing free transportation to their employees and their children as a welfare measure.

The judgment referred to the case of M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. to clarify the definition of 'passenger' but noted that the decision would not be applicable to the present case as it turns on its own facts.

The appeals were dismissed, and the final Orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh were affirmed, subject to the clarifications made.

This judgment is expected to have significant implications for the transportation sector, particularly for public sector organizations providing free transportation services to their employees and their children.

Date Of Decision: 06 September 2023

NHPC LTD. vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH    SECRETARY & ORS.              

Latest Legal News