Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & RURAL TECHNOLOGY versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


College Of Engineering & Rural Technology v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 1339 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 1668 (18 July 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.37

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.1339 OF 2004

College of Engineering & Rural Technology,

Delhi Road, Meerut. ....Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. And others.   ....Respondents

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Petitioner claimed to be educational institution imparting education at different levels and owns vehicles for transportation of their students from residence to the schools vice versa. The claim of the petitioner is he is not liable for surcharge under section 6(3) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and therefore, demand raised by the respondents is absolutely illegal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

There is no dispute that the petitioner is the educational institution and the vehicle owned by the petitioner is being used exclusively for carrying the students to and from the institution. The nominal amount is being charged from the students are to meet the recurring expenditure towards the maintenance and are not in the nature of hire or reward.

In the case of St. Mary's School, District Bhadohi and another in Writ Petition No.645 of 2004, decided on 08.07.2005, it has been held by  this Court that the petitioner being educational institution and owner of the vehicle using the vehicle exclusively for the purpose of carrying the students to and from the institution are not liable to surcharge under section 6 (3) of the Act, in as much as their vehicle do not come within the purview of public service vehicle.

Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed not to demand or levy surcharge under section 6(3) of the Act from the petitioner. Any amount if deposited towards surcharge, shall be refunded forthwith.

Dt.18.07.2005

R./


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.