# Principal M.R. Jaipuria School , Lko v. Deputy Transport Commissioner Passenger Tax Lko & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 896
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1002443 of 2012
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/principal-m-r-jaipuria-school-lko-v-deputy-transport-commissioner-passenger-tax-50471
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Motor Vehicle Law - UP Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1997 - Section 4(3) - School
Bus Registration - Seizure - Allegation of
carrying
wedding
guest
without
permission - No opportunity of hearing
was given - Mistake has been accepted by
the motor vehicle owner/ petitioner -
Effect - Tax imposed - Legality challenged
- Held, tax is assessed on the basis of
owner's application accepting his guilt -
Hence, there was no requirement of
providing any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. (Para 5 and 6)

B. Motor Vehicle Law - Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 - UP Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,
1997
-
Violation
-
Two
separate
proceeding under the Act of 1988 as well
under the Act of 1997 were initiated for
the same act - Permissibility - Held, there
are two separate Acts i.e. Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and UP Motor Vehicles Taxation
Act, 1997, which are violated by the act of
petitioner, therefore, proceedings under
both the Acts are bound to be held. (Para
7)

C. Motor Vehicle Law - Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 - Section 2(47) - UP Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1997 - Section 2(n) - Word
'Transport Vehicle' - Scope and applicability
- Under the Taxation Act of 1997, a
transport vehicle is merely a good carriage
and a public service vehicle. The word
'public vehicle' only includes vehicles in
which passengers are carrying on rent -
School bus is not covered within the
definition of 'public service vehicle' under
the Taxation Act of 1997 - Thus, school bus
is not a transport vehicle so far as the
Taxation Act of 1997 is concerned while the
same is a transport vehicle under the Act of
1988 - While the Act of 1988 is a Central
Act, the Taxation Act of 1997 is a St. Act,
which provides for taxation on transport
and commercial vehicles - Since the scope
and subject matter of both the aforesaid
Laws deal with entirely separate subjects, it
would not be proper to borrow definition
while the same is already provided under
the Act. (Para 11, 13 and 14)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
assessment as provisional solely on the
premise that the matter was sub judice and
hence "all the assessment for the period April
1981 to 15.3.1983 were, therefore, made
provisional". CEGAT has rightly found that
the said yardstick was hardly sufficient to
make an assessment provisional."

13. In light of the aforesaid, demand
cum show cause notice dated 08.04.1980 is
held to be time-barred and therefore
impugned
orders
dated
26.08.1992,
08.01.1993 and 05.02.1999 passed on the
basis of the said time-barred notice are
hereby set aside.

14, Writ petition is allowed.

15. The respondents are directed to
refund the money deposited by the petitioner
in accordance with law.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 896
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-C No. 1002443 of 2012

Principal M.R. Jaipuria School , Lko.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy
Transport
Commissioner
Passenger Tax Lko & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ghaus Beg

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Motor Vehicle Law - UP Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1997 - Section 4(3) - School
Bus Registration - Seizure - Allegation of
carrying
wedding
guest
without
permission - No opportunity of hearing
was given - Mistake has been accepted by
the motor vehicle owner/ petitioner -
Effect - Tax imposed - Legality challenged
- Held, tax is assessed on the basis of
owner's application accepting his guilt -
Hence, there was no requirement of
providing any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. (Para 5 and 6)

B. Motor Vehicle Law - Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 - UP Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,
1997
-
Violation
-
Two
separate
proceeding under the Act of 1988 as well
under the Act of 1997 were initiated for
the same act - Permissibility - Held, there
are two separate Acts i.e. Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and UP Motor Vehicles Taxation
Act, 1997, which are violated by the act of
petitioner, therefore, proceedings under
both the Acts are bound to be held. (Para
7)

C. Motor Vehicle Law - Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 - Section 2(47) - UP Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1997 - Section 2(n) - Word
'Transport Vehicle' - Scope and applicability
- Under the Taxation Act of 1997, a
transport vehicle is merely a good carriage
and a public service vehicle. The word
'public vehicle' only includes vehicles in
which passengers are carrying on rent -
School bus is not covered within the
definition of 'public service vehicle' under
the Taxation Act of 1997 - Thus, school bus
is not a transport vehicle so far as the
Taxation Act of 1997 is concerned while the
same is a transport vehicle under the Act of
1988 - While the Act of 1988 is a Central
Act, the Taxation Act of 1997 is a St. Act,
which provides for taxation on transport
and commercial vehicles - Since the scope
and subject matter of both the aforesaid
Laws deal with entirely separate subjects, it
would not be proper to borrow definition
while the same is already provided under
the Act. (Para 11, 13 and 14)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
6 All. Principal M.R. Jaipuria School, Lko. Vs. Deputy Transport Commissioner Passenger Tax
 Lko & Ors.
897

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State.

2. By the present writ petition,
petitioner is challenging order dated
06.02.2010 whereby a school bus registered
in the name of petitioner is seized, order
dated 15.01.2011 whereby tax liability has
been fixed on the petitioner and order dated
09.02.2012 whereby appeal against the
same is also rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a
school bus bearing registration number
UP42A8602, registered in the name of
Principal M. R. Jaipuria School was seized
by Assistant Regional Transport Officer,
Raebareli on 06.02.2010 near Bacchrawan,
Raebareli. One of the charges levelled
included carrying wedding guests without
any permit for the same. Petitioner's bus
had a permit for carrying "school children
only". This alleged act was in violation of
section 4(3) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1997 (for short 'the Taxation
Act of 1997') and as such by order dated
15.01.2011, petitioner was held liable to
pay taxes for using the school bus as
transport vehicle without any permit.
Petitioner preferred an appeal against the
same which was also dismissed by order
dated 09.02.2012.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
challenges the validity of impugned orders
on following grounds:

(i) petitioner was not given any
opportunity of hearing before passing the
final assessment order dated 15.1.2011;

(ii) there are two proceedings;
one under the U.P. Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') and
another under the Taxation Act of 1997
initiated against the petitioner and two
proceedings for the same offence cannot be
initiated; and

(iii)
that
the
respondentauthorities
have
wrongly
taken
the
definition of the word 'transport vehicle'
from the Taxation Act of 1997 and the
same ought to have been as provided under
the Act of 1988.

5. So far as the first submission of
learned counsel for petitioner with regard
to opportunity of hearing before passing the
impugned
order
dated
15.1.2011
is
concerned, the appellate authority has
considered the same and given a finding
that petitioner/appellant had moved an
application of acceptance of his mistake
and tax is assessed on the basis of the said
acceptance of petitioner. Hence, there was
no
requirement
of
providing
any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner
could not dispute the said finding as he
could not show that the tax is assessed on
the basis of his application accepting his
guilt. Therefore, the said submission of
learned counsel for petitioner has no force
and is rejected.

7. So far as second submission of
learned counsel for petitioner that two
proceedings
are
initiated
against
the
petitioner for the same act is concerned,
there are two separate Acts i.e. U.P. Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and U.P. Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, which are
violated by the act of petitioner, therefore,
proceedings under both the Acts are bound
to be held.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner
could not show any provision of law or
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rulings in support of his submission
whereby when an act of a person violates
two separate Acts, a general law and a tax
law, two separate proceedings cannot be
initiated. Hence, the second submission of
learned counsel for petitioner also has no
force and is rejected.

9. Now, coming to the third
submission of learned counsel for petitioner
that authorities were required to take
definition of 'transport vehicle' as provided
under Section 2(47) of the Act of 1988 and
not under Section 2(n) of the Taxation Act
of 1997 is concerned, it is necessary to
peruse the relevant provisions also.

10. Section 2(47) of the Act of 1988
provides:

"2(47) "transport vehicle" means
a public service vehicle, a goods carriage,
an educational institution bus or a private
services vehicle."

The said definition takes within
the scope public service vehicle, goods
carriage as well as educational institution
bus or private service vehicle. The said
definition is entirely different from the
definition of word 'transport vehicle'
provided under Section 2(n) of the
Taxation Act of 1997, which reads:

"2(n) "transport vehicle" means
a good carriage or a public service
vehicle."

11. Under the Taxation Act of 1997, a
transport vehicle is merely a good carriage
and a public service vehicle. The word
'public service vehicle' is further defined by
Section 2(35) of the Act of 1988, which
reads:

"2(35) "public service vehicle"
means any motor vehicle used or adapted
to be used for the carriage of passengers
for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab,
a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage
carriage."

Therefore,
the
word
'public
vehicle' only includes vehicles in which
passengers are carrying on rent. School bus
is not covered within the definition of
'public service vehicle' under the Taxation
Act of 1997 and, therefore, is not covered
within the definition of 'transport vehicle'.
Thus, school bus is not a transport vehicle
so far as the Taxation Act of 1997 is
concerned while the same is a transport
vehicle under the Act of 1988.

12. Section 2(o) of the Taxation Act
of 1997 provides:

"2(o) words and expressions used
but not defined in this Act and defined in
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall have the
respective meaning assigned to them in that
Act."

As per aforesaid Section 2(o),
only those definitions are required to be
borrowed from the Act of 1988 which are
not provided under the Taxation Act of
1997.

13. Since definition of 'transport
vehicle' is vehicle provided by the Taxation
Act of 1997, the same cannot be borrowed
from the Act of 1988. Even otherwise, both
the Acts are operating in entirely separate
fields while the Act of 1988 is a Central
Act enacted to consolidate laws relating to
the Act of 1988, which is applicable
throughout the country and the Taxation
Act of 1997 is a State Act, which provides
6 All. Vijay Narayan Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Basti & Ors.
899
for taxation on transport and commercial
vehicles.

14. Therefore, since the scope and
subject matter of both the aforesaid laws
deal with entirely separate subjects, it
would not be proper to borrow definition
while the same is already provided under
the Act. In case Legislature so desired, it
would not have provided a separate
definition of the word 'transport vehicle'
under the Taxation Act of 1997. Therefore,
the said submission of learned counsel for
petitioner also does not have any force.

15. In view of aforesaid, there is no
force in present writ petition. It is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 899
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 218 of 2022

Vijay Narayan ...Petitioner
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Basti & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashutosh Pandey, Sri Pankaj
Kumar Gupta

A. Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953-Sections 11, 12 & 52The appeal u/s 11 of the Act filed by
contesting
respondents
cannot
be
entertained as contesting respondents
being private persons were not parties to
the
proceeding
before
Consolidation
officer nor contesting respondents have
title in respect to disputed plot rather
their stand is that they are protecting the
State/Gaon Sabha property, as such, there
was no question of condonation of delay
in filing the appeal and fixing the same for
decision on merit-The continuance of the
appellate proceeding at the instance of
contesting respondents on the ground
that by impugned order only delay in filing
appeal has been condoned and rest matter
will be decided later on will be abuse of
process of law-an objection u/s 9-A(2) of
the Act cannot be filed by private person
as procedure has been prescribed under
para -128 of Gaon Sabha Manual for
conducting or initiating proceeding in
respect of Gaon Sabha Property.-Hence
the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.(Para 1 to 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Dodram Vs Collector Peelibheet (2014) 125
RD 333

2. Tripal Singh S/o Sone Lal Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2006) Vol. 1 AWC 205

3. Ram Jiavan & Addl Commr. Vindhyachal
Mandal Mirzapur & ors.. (2014) 124 RD 2019

4. Smt. Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur & ors. Vs DDC,
Rampur & ors. (2003) 94 RD 79

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Srivastava,
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh
Pandey, Counsel for respondent no. 3,
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta,
Counsel for respondent no. 7, Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that name
of the petitioner was ordered to be recorded