Deputy Controller Of Stores, Nw ... vs C.T.O,Spl.Circle Ii Jodhpur ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7964 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32886]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 383/2006

Deputy Controller of Stores, NW Railway

----Petitioner Versus C.T.O. Spl. Circle II Jodhpur

----Respondent

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

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

05/10/2023

1. 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.

2. 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] (2 of 4) [CR-383/2006]

3. 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.

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.

4. 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.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

6. Section 2 (1)(f) of the Act of 1988 defines a person as

under:

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

[2023:RJ-JD:32886] (3 of 4) [CR-383/2006]

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

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:

"(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:

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."

7. 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] (4 of 4) [CR-383/2006]

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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

(REKHA BORANA),J 69-T.Singh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)