Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1999 (8) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1999 (8) TMI 1010 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues: Interpretation of the term "operator" in the Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1958.

In this case, the State of Maharashtra appealed against a judgment of the High Court at Bombay regarding the liability of a financer who supplied vehicles on hire purchase basis. The financer had obtained vehicles on hire purchase from a third party, but the third party defaulted on payments, leading to the financer resuming possession of the vehicles. The financer sought fresh registration certificates for the vehicles in its name, but the Regional Transport Officer refused, citing unpaid arrears of passenger tax by the third party. The financer filed a writ petition, which was initially declined relief by a single judge but was later reversed by a Division Bench of the High Court.

The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "operator" in the Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1958. The original definition of "operator" referred to any person whose name was entered in the permit as the holder thereof. However, this definition was later amended to include persons in whose name the vehicle is registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, or the person having possession or control of the vehicle. The State argued that the financer should be considered an "operator" based on possession or control of the vehicles, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court clarified that the amended definition of "operator" should be read to include both scenarios separately - (i) the person in whose name the vehicle is registered and (ii) the person having possession or control of the vehicle. Therefore, the financer could not be held liable for the arrears of passenger tax as the operator of the vehicles.

Additionally, the State attempted to base an argument on Section 29(A)(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, but the Court declined to consider this argument as it was not raised adequately during the proceedings. The Court dismissed the civil appeal, and no costs were awarded in the case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates