JUDGMENT S.K. Yog and Prakash Krishna, JJ.
1. All the above Writ Petitions listed in Bunch, as the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties have requested, heard and decided together since they raise common issues on somewhat similar facts. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the above petitions listed in bunch. Facts are referred from the record of the leading Writ Petition No. 420 of 2004.
2. Circular dated 27th January, 2004/Annexure 1 to the said Writ Petition is common which is under challenge. This Circular was, at it shows, was initially applicable up to 31.3.1997 but with an option to further extension. There is nothing on record to show that the scheme under said Circular was, if at all, extended further.
3. We find that 'additional tax' was imposed under U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997 read with U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1998 (as amended by U.P. Act No. 21 of 2004). Tax on 'Motor Vehicles' is imposed under Section 4 of the Act, 1997 and 'additional tax' is imposed on 'public service vehicles' under Section 6 of the said Act.
4. For ready reference relevant extract of Section 6 of the Taxation Act, 1997 is being reproduced-
6. Additional tax on public service vehicle.-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act or the rules made there under, no public service vehicle [other than those owned or controlled by a State Transport Undertaking] shall be operated in any public place in Uttar Pradesh unless there has been paid in respect thereof, in addition to the tax payable under Section 4, an additional tax at the rate applicable to such public service specified in the Fourth Schedule;
Provided that the State Government may, by notification, increase by not more than fifty per cent, the rates of additional tax specified in the said Schedule;
5. We may also, for convenience, reproduce relevant extract of Fourth Schedule (referred under afore-quoted Section 6 of the Act)-
FOURTH SCHEDULE (See Section 6) Rates of Additional Tax on stage carriages I. In respect of vehicles, other than Omni bus when used as contract carriage, operating in plains, excluding [****] Jhansi Region.
(a) Rates of additional tax on each seat:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided that the additional tax on a stage carriage operating within the limits of a corporation or a municipality shall be Rs, 4,200 per quarter in respect of a stage carriage having not more than 35 seats and Rs. 6,000 per quarter in respect of a stage carriage having more than 35 seats....
6. A bare reading of the extract of the afore-quoted Fourth Schedule shows that clause I (a) contains in Table-form, rate of 'additional tax' to be charged on capacity basis of vehicles. The above table shows that it is being calculated on the basis of the 'distance' in a quarter of a year, i.e. in three months.
7. It is interesting to note that the proviso provides rate of 'additional tax' on fixed amount basis (with reference to capacity of a stage carriage) which operates within the 'limits of a Corporation or a municipality'. Proviso is in the nature of exception to the main clause. It reflects intention to impose certain amount as 'additional-tax' on such stage carriages, which ply only within the limits of Corporation or a Municipality (i.e. irrespective of the distance).
8. In contras, main Clause 1(a) (in Fourth Scheduled), is not with respect to a stage carriage, which operates out side the limits of 'Corporation or Municipality', or a stage carriage, which operates both in a municipality and also outside the municipality. The main Clause (Tabulated rate) are applicable to 'stage carriages' to both which operate exclusively outside Corporation or Municipal Limit or route which lie both in Corporation or Municipal Limit and also outside said limit. Fourth Schedule is, therefore, clear and there is no ambiguity.
9. We may refer to the letter of the Transport Commissioner addressed to the concerned authorities of the Corporation dated January 27, 2004, copy annexed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition, which is also reproduced below-
ßizs"kd] ftrsUnz fo".kq] ifjogu vk;qDr] mRrj izns'kA lsok esa] 1- leLr laHkkxh; ifjogu vf/kdkjh] m0 iz0A 2- leLr lgk0 laHkkxh; ifjogu vf/kdkjh ¼iz'kklu½] m0 iz0A lkekU; iz'kklu vuqHkkx y[kum fnukad % tuojh 27] 2004 fo"k; % uxj ikfydk lhek ls ckgj lapkfyr uxj clksa dk vfrfjDr dj LySc ds vk/kkj ij olwyus ds lEcU/k esaA ;g laKku esa vk;k gS fd dqN laHkkxksa esa uxj cl lsok okguksa tks uxj ikfydk lhek ls ckgj lapkfyr gks jgh gS] ls LySc ds vk/kkj ij vfrfjDr dj ugha olwyk tk jgk gS] tcfd iwoZ esa ,sls funsZ'k fn;k tk pqds gSa fd uxj ikfydk lhek ds ckgj lapkfyr uxj clksa ls LySc ds vk/kkj ij vfrfjDr dj olwyk tk,A vr% funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd tks uxj clsa uxj ikfydk lhek ,oa mlds ckgj ds ekxksZ ij lapkfyr gks jgh gS] mudk vfrfjDr dj lapkfyr nwjh ds lksikuksa ds vuqlkj olwy fd;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA Hkonh;] ¼ftrsUnz o".kq½ ifjogu vk;qDr] m0 iz0Þ
10. Aforesaid letter admits no uncertainty and it is also un-equivocal. It provides that 'additional tax' is to be charged as per slab given in the Fourth Schedule.
11. Since there is no clear mention of the fact that what will be the additional tax with respect to stage carriage which operates within the municipal limits and also outside municipal limits. Court has put a specific query to the Standing Counsel, Sh. S.P. Kesarwani, Advocate who fairly concedes that the slab, (provided under Table in aforesaid Fourth Schedule) will be applicable, when vehicle runs exclusively in Municipal limit and also simultaneously outside such limit (where route falls both in and outside such limit of Corporation or Municipality)
12. The petitioners have sought to raise dispute for which, in fact they had no grievance.
13. We may mention here that petitioner has obtained interim order dated 12.5.2004, which is reproduced below.-
In the meantime we stay the operation of impugned circulation dated 27-4-04 Aannexure-1 to the writ petition.
14. We find that by obtaining such an interim order petitioner has virtually got relief, which he had not even prayed for. It is not permissible.
15. In that view of the matter we make it clear that petitioner and like will be liable to pay 'additional tax' w.e.f. it is payable in law and it may be recovered by the concerned authority.
16. Sri S.A. Saha, Advocate appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1564 of 2005 submits that taxing provisions should be considered strictly. We have no intention to adopt a different yardstick. Besides it there is no such contingency-argument is uncalled for.
17. Sri Shiv Ram Mishra, Advocate appearing in Writ Petition No. 280 of 2005 (Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) and Writ Petition No. 378 of 2005 (Ram Lakhan and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) apart from the above, submits that permits in question were granted to the petitioner under 'Mahanagar Bus Seva Yojana' whose terms and conditions contained therein part of record. We have gone through it. There is nothing to show that provisions of U.P. Taxation Act, 1997 and Rules framed thereunder (which came in force much after enforcement of Scheme in question i.e. Mahanagar Bus Seva Scheme) shall not be applicable to said scheme. The argument has no substance.
18. Writ Petition is devoid of merit and, therefore, dismissed.
19. No order as to costs.