Hoshiarpur Express Transport Company Ltd. vs The State of Punjab

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The Hoshiarpur Express Transport Company, as the name proclaims, is a Transport Company engaged in the business of running buses for the general public. In furtherance thereof, it purchases chasis and after getting bodies built thereon, uses them as buses for carrying on its business Sections When such buses lose their utility to the Assessee, they are sold.

It was the plea of the Assessee-Company that a chasis with a body built upon it for use as a bus retains its identity and character as chasis and as chasis was included in the entry "Motor Vehicle" in the notification of March 30, 1966, in terms of Rule 29(xi) and (xii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules'') the purchase value of the chasis had to be deducted from the gross turnover of the Assessee. In other words, a chasis with or without a body built upon it was a ''Motor Vehicle'' and therefore, when a bus is sold, it must be treated as sale of a chasis and so considered on its sale, it was entitled to the benefit of Rule 29(xi) and (xii) of the Rules. This contention was, however, negative by the Tribunal. It is in this context that two questions came to be referred for our opinion. These being:

(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Chasis is not the same thing as a Bus for the purpose of Section 5(1-A) ?

Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that ratio of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1973 R.L.R, 52 was applicable to the present cases and no relief was available to the Assessee for the tax already paid by him when he purchased those goods as an unregistered dealer; and if the answer to be in the negative, what would be the effect on tax liability of the Assessee ?

In dealing with the point in issue, it must be appreciated that when a chasis is purchased and bus is built upon it and then sold, it would indeed be straining ones credibility to hold that what is sold is precisely what had been bought. There can be no manner of doubt that chasis and buses are two different and distinct commodities and must indeed be treated as such even though they may both come within the ambit of the expression "Motor Vehicle" in the relevant notification. It is a well-settled rule that even in the interpretation of taxing Statutes, the plain and ordinary meaning has to be taken unless the statute or the context prescribes otherwise, which is not the case here. The Tribunal was thus clearly correct in holding that a chasis was not the same thing as a bus for the purposes of Section 5(1-A) and (b) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The first question must thus be answered in the affirmative in favour of the revenue and against the Assessee.

As regards the other question, the judgment mentioned therein namely Jawahar Lal Siri Chand v. Union Territory Chandigarh and Ors. 1973 R.L.R. 52, is clearly not applicable and no relief is therefore available to the Assessee by virtue thereof. This question is thus answered accordingly.

This reference is disposed of in the manner indicated. There will, however, be no order as to costs.