9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the demand of additional tax under Article 301 of the Constitution. 2. Interpretation of rule 8(v) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1925 regarding tax exemption for vehicles kept in the state for a limited period. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses applications under Article 32 of the Constitution concerning All India Tourist Permits holders challenging the demand of additional tax under the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioners argue that the levy of additional tax is not compensatory or regulatory, thus violating Article 301. The court examines the taxing provisions in different states and cites precedents to establish the constitutionality of such taxes. It is held that a nexus between the tax and the subject is sufficient for the levy, and the discretion to determine the rate lies with the State Government within the statutory limit. The court rejects the challenge against the taxing provision, affirming the validity of the tax and additional tax demands. 2. The judgment delves into the interpretation of rule 8(v) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1925, which provides tax exemption for vehicles kept in Punjab and Haryana for up to 30 days. The court clarifies that the term 'kept for use' implies more than mere transit or temporary halt, requiring a vehicle to be used within the state for taxability. Precedents are cited to define 'kept' in the context of tax liability, emphasizing that vehicles used for more than 30 days in a year lose the exemption. The ruling leaves the determination of tax exigibility under rule 8(v) to individual cases, emphasizing the need for a substantive connection between the vehicle's presence and use in the state for tax implications. In conclusion, the judgment upholds the validity of the tax and additional tax demands under the Motor Vehicles Act, while providing clarity on the interpretation of rule 8(v) for tax exemption eligibility based on the duration of vehicle use within Punjab and Haryana.
|
