Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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