Basant Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

Mahajan, J.—This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is by one Basant Singh owner of truck No. RJK-4567, permit No. 609-A for Bikaner Region of Rajasthan State, for Jullundur and Ambala Regions of Punjab State and the Delhi State. This permit has been countersigned by the State Transport Authorities, Delhi, Jullundur and Ambala. The petitioner was carrying goods from a place outside the territory of Punjab State to a place again outside the territory of the Punjab State, but was passing through the territory of the Punjab State, when he was challaned for not having paid the goods-tax, which he was liable to pay. A lump sum tax at the rate of Rs. 202.50 nP. per quarter was demanded. The assessment proceedings thereafter were started against the petitioner. A notice was sent to him to the effect that the petitioner was required to get his vehicle registered and as he had failed to get the vehicle registered, he was liable to assessment under sections 6(2), 6(4) and 9(4) of the Punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act, He was accordingly directed to appear before the Assessing Authority on the 29th April, 1933. Another notice was issued by the same authority for the 17th May, 1963, calling upon him to appear before the authority on the 24th May, 1963, at Abohar. The petitioner did appear in response to the notice and was told to get the vehicle registered and pay the arrears of tax from the date of the countersignature on the permit. The petitioner was directed that if he failed to comply with the order, the tax would be recovered as arrears of land revenue and he would be liable to pay tax in future. It is this notice which is being challenged in this petition.

The first contention of the petitioner is that he cannot be required to get his vehicle registered under the Act, because no tax is livable from him. It is stated that he does not carry goods from a place in the territory of Punjab to a place outside Punjab or carry goods from a place outside Punjab into the territory of Punjab. All he does is to carry goods from a place outside Punjab to another place outside Punjab, although he does pass through the territory of Punjab. In this situation he does not incur the liability to tax under the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act, which is the charging section. Sections 3(3) is in these terms :

Where passengers are carried or goods transported by a motor vehicle from any place outside the State to any place within the State, or from any place within the State to any place outside the State, the tax shall be payable in respect of the distance covered within the State at the rate laid down in sub-section (1) and shall be calculated on such amount as bears the same proportion to the total fare or freight as the distance covered in the State bears to the total distance of the journey.

Provided that where passengers are carried or goods transported by a motor vehicle from any place within the State through the intervening territory of another State, the tax shall be levied on the full amount of the fare or freight payable for the entire journey and the owner shall issue a single ticket or receipt as the case may be accordingly." The plain reading of this section shows that the contention of the petitioner is wholly unsound. It hardly matters whether he carries goods from a place outside the Punjab to another place, outside the Punjab. He is liable to tax because in the very nature of things he first transports the goods from a place outside the Punjab to a place inside the Punjab and then transports them from a place inside the Punjab to a place outside the Punjab. There is no escape from this conclusion. Both ends are covered by the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act. A reference was made to the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 3 by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the contention that there was no specific provision for levy of tax on passengers or goods carried from a place outside the Punjab State to another place again outside the territory of the State of Punjab. The argument is that where the legislature wanted to tax goods which were merely passing through but were not meant to be unloaded in Punjab or to be loaded in Punjab for transport out of Punjab, they would have used the same phraseology in section 3(3) as has been used in the proviso to it, which taxes the freight on goods for the entire distance when the goods are being brought from one place in the Punjab to another place in the Punjab but pass through some territory which is not part of the Punjab.

The short answer to this argument is that the proviso is meant to cover a different contingency and does not in any manner restrict the provisions of section 33), which as, I have already indicated, fully covers the case of the petitioner. The plain reading of subsection (3) of section 3 of the Act fastens the liability on the petitioner the moment he enters the territory of the State of Punjab and transports the goods within that territory. He is only liable to tax for the mileage covered in that territory in accordance with the provisions of section 3(1) of the Act. Therefore, there is no force in this contention of the petitioner.

The second contention raised is that the petitioner is required to pay a lump sum tax under the provisions of rule 9 of the Rules made under the Act. It may be mentioned that the scheme of the Act and the Rules is that the tax is to be paid on the mileage covered in the State at the rate of l/6th value of the freight or fare but for facility of the transporters a lump sum formula has been set out in the rules which avoids putting in returns by the persons who are chargeable to tax under law. Option is given by the Act to such persons to pay it under the provisions of section 3(1) or in lump sum. If the petitioner is not wanting to pay on the lump sum basis he should move the authority indicating that he will pay tax according to section 3(1) of the Act. But so far as his liability to tax is concerned, there can be no two opinions about it.

For the reasons given above, this petition fails and is dismissed.

The State will have its costs which are assessed at Rs. 32/-.