Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOMANY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAG versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SOMANY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAG v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors - CWP-8679-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5321 (8 August 2006)

CWP NO. 8679 OF 2006 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO. 8679 OF 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 30.5.2006

SOMANY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, REWARI

....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

PRESENT:MR. GAURAV MOHUNTA, ADVOCATE

FOR THE PETITIONER

JUDGEMENT

This is a petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by the State Transport Controller, Haryana, Chandigarh, wherein the petitioner has been required to deposit road tax on the motor vehicle used by it for carrying students. The contention of the petitioner is that the demand is totally contrary to Rule 8(iii) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1925 (as applicable to Haryana)(for short 'the Rules'). The relevant portion of the Rule is extracted below:

8. Under sub-section (1) of the section 13 of the Act, persons who keep for use motor vehicles of the following classes are exempt from liability to pay the tax in respect of such motor vehicles to the extent specified below:-

(i) xx xx xx xx

(ii) xx xx xx xx

(iii) Motor vehicles owned by the educational institutions and used solely for the purpose of CWP NO. 8679 OF 2006 [2]

carrying pupils to and from the educational institutions or for purposes directly related to or incidental to the functions of the educational institutions - Total exemption."

To support his arguments the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 19157 of 2003, titled Principal, Haryana College of Technology and Management, Ambala Road Kaithal vs. State of Hrayana and others , decided on 7.2.2005.

We have heard counsel for the petitioner.

While filing the petition, the petitioner has not cited the amendment made in Rule 8(iii) of the Rules vide notification dated 23.6.2005, after the judgment of this Court in Principal, Haryana College of Technology and Management's case (supra), which is as follows: "HARYANA GOVERNMENT

TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

Notification

The 23rd

June, 2005

No. S.O. 45/P.A. IV/1924/S. 15/2005. xx xx

1. xx xx

2. In the Punjab Motor-Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1925, in rule 8,-

(i) in clause (iii),-

(a) after the word "Motor-Vehicles owned by the educational institutions", the words, signs and figures "affiliated to any State/Central Education Board imparting education upto the standard of 10+2 or its equivalent" shall be inserted; (b) for sign "." the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

"Provided that the educational institution does not charge fare in excess of the fare, as fixed by the competent authority under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 67 of the Motor- Vehicles Act, 1988, (Act 59 of 1988), to be charged for travelling by a stage carriage CWP NO. 8679 OF 2006 [3]

reduced by the amount of passenger tax, if any, included therein."

After the amendment, provision of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules will read as under:

8. Under sub-section (1) of the section 13 of the Act, persons who keep for use motor vehicles of the following classes are exempt from liability to pay the tax in respect of such motor vehicles to the extent specified below:-

(i) xx xx xx xx

(ii) xx xx xx xx

(iii) Motor vehicles owned by the educational institutions affiliated to any State/Central Education Board imparting education upto the standard of 10+2 or its equivalent and used solely for the purpose of carrying pupils to and from the educational institutions or for purposes directly related to or incidental to the functions of the educational institutions - Total Exemption.

Provided that the educational institution does not charge fare in excess of the fare, as fixed by the competent authority under

clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 67 of the Motor-Vehicles Act, 1988, (Act 59 of 1988), to be charged for travelling by a stage carriage reduced by the amount of passenger tax, if any, included therein.

As per the amended provisions the exemption is available only to the educational institution affiliated to State/ Central Education Board imparting education upto the standard of 10+2 or equivalent.

In the present case it is not disputed that the petitioner is an CWP NO. 8679 OF 2006 [4]

institution which is providing education in Engineering/Technology and Management to students after 10+2 and the same is affiliated to M.D.

University, Rohtak besides being approved by All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi.

In view of the amended provisions of the Rules, the petitioner is held not entitled to exemption claimed.

No other point has been argued.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE

May 30, 2006 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

gsv JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.