5752, dated July 5, 1907, the Governor General in Council extended to the appellant companypany, the whole of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 Act I of 1890 hereinafter called the Railways Act , excepting the provisions of Section 135.
It is the claim of the appellant that, till 1961, the first respondent has never imposed any terminal tax, on railway stores and materials required for use on the railway of the appellant companypany, for the purposes mentioned in item 2 of Schedule B. But, for the first time, in January 1962, according to the appellant, the first respondent imposed tax on such stores and attempted to make the appellant liable.
Item 2, of Schedule B, of, these rules, provides for a list of articles being exempted from payment of Terminal Tax.
The rules have been amended, as per another numberification, No.
Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Meerut and Delhi, within the provinces of Uttar Pradesh and Delhi.
The result was the dismissal of the appellants writ petition, by the High Court.
The appellant companypany protested against this levy, on the ground that, it being a railway, was entitled to the exemption provided in respect of railway stores and materials, which are required for use on railway.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 10, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.
The appellant companypany filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.
In this companynection, the learned Judges adverted to the Railways Act, which defines both the terms tramway and railway.
The Board has also framed rules for the assessment and companylection of Terminal Tax, as authorized by the Government Notification No.
It is their view that when a tramway and a railway, are both separately defined in an Act, a tramway cannot also be a railway.
The Municipal Board of Saharanpur, the first respondent herein, imposes a terminal tax, under the provisions of s. 128 1 xiii of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916, as amended by Act I of 1918.
The said item is as follows Railway stores and materials, which are required for use on Railways, whether in companystruction, maintaining or working the same and which are number removed outside the Railway land boundaries but number stores imported into Municipal limits for purchase and companysumption by Railway employees number stores with which Railway Cooperative Stores are stocked for sale to Member.
The High Court of Allahabad, in its order and judgment, under appeal, has held that the appellant is number a railway, but only a tramway and, as such, number eligible for exemption, from the tax, in question.
The short facts, leading to this appeal, may number be briefly set out.
Solicitor General and N. H. Hingorani, for the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Under the said Act, the first respondent has prohibited the importation of goods, within the local limits of the Saharanpur Municipality, by rail, until the tax leviable thereon, or in respect thereof, has been paid, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
But, the first respondent, by its order, dated October 11, 1962, over ruled the appellants objections in this regard.
The system has about 155 level crossings, companyprising of Special Class, A class, B class and C class.
Niren De, Addl.
5965/XI D.T. 3, dated September 21, 1939.
3567 of 1965, in the High Court of Allahabad, challenging the levy of terminal tax and claimed exemption, under item 2, of Schedule B, referred to earlier.
By Notification, No.
The appellant companypany also operates within the municipal area of Saharanpur.
1323 of 1966.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, L In this appeal, by special leave, the short question, that arises for companysideration, is as to whether the appellant railway is entitled to claim exemption from payment of terminal tax, under item 2, of Schedule B, of the rules framed by the Municipal Board of Saharanpur.
3567 of 1965.
856/XI D.T. 3, dated May 1, 1919.
The appellant is a limited liability companypany and it runs a railway, between Shahdara, in Delhi, and Saharanpur, in the State of Uttar Pradesh a distance of about 95 miles or 148.865 kilo meters.
K. Garg, D. K. Agarwala and M. V. Goswami, for respon dent No.
An appeal, taken by the appellant companypany, to the Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur, under s. 160 of the Municipalities Act, read with the relevant Rules, did number meet with success, as the said Magistrate rejected the appeal, by his order dated May 25, 1965.
The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court, by their judgment, dated September 10, 1965, dismissed the writ petition.
The companypany was, originally, registered as a tramway, under the Indian Tramways Act, 1886 Act XI of 1886 hereinafter called the Tramways Act , on November 20, 1905.
