1 issued a numberification on the 9th March, 1961 levying tax at the said maximum permissible rates.
entertain any such application.
The petitioner prays that this Court should hold that the Act is invalid, and should, by an appropriate writ, quash the impugned orders of assessment passed against him.
Thereupon, a numberification was issued by respondent No.
4 of 1964 .
Against this judgment, the High Court has ranted certificates of fitness for leave to appeal to this Court and the record in the said appeals is being printed in the High Court.
2, but respondent No.
2 refused to entertain the said appeals unless the petitioner paid in advance the tax imposed by the orders under appeal.
Neither the bill in respect of this Act received 1 1962 1 S.C.R. 517.
These rates were the same as had been prescribed by s. 3 of the same Act as maximum permissible rates.
Section 9 of this Act amended s. 3 of the principal Act authorised the increase of the two respective taxes to 20 per cent and 15 per cent respectively.
1 on the 30th April, 1959 under s. 3 of the said Act and It came into force, on May 1, 1959 it directed the manner in which, and the rates at which, the tax shall be charged and recovered.
Section 3 of the, principal Act authorised the State Government to levy, charge and companylect tax on all fares and freights in respect of all passengers carried and goods transported by motor vehicles in Rajas than.
This Act received the assent of the President on April 2, 1959 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on April 30, 1959, and came into force on May 1, 1959.
The validity of this Act has been upheld by this Court in M s Sainik Motors, Jodhpur Ors.
This Ordinance was made and promulgated by the Governor of Rajasthan on May 15, 1964.
The three respondents to his petition respectively are The State of Rajasthan, the Deputy Commissioner, Excise and Taxation Appeals , Jaipur, and the Taxation Officer, The Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Sikar, State of Rajasthan.
assent of the President before it was introduced in the State Legislature, number did this Act receive his assent after it was passed.
1 passed an Act in 1959 No.
19 of 1965.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar C.J. The petitioner, Jawaharinal, carries on business of plying his motor buses on four routes under the Stage Carriage Permits granted to him under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
In other words, except for the limited relief granted in respect of the levying of the penalty, the substantial companytention raised by the petitioners challenging the validity of the Act has been rejected by the High Court.
Later, the said Ordinance was repealed and replaced by the Act with which we are companycerned in the present proceedings.
The Commissioner rejected this application on the 8th February, 1962.
This numberification was made effective on and from the 1st May, 1959.
The main ground on which the validity of the said orders is challenged, is that the Ordinance under which the impugned orders were passed and the Rajasthan Passgengers and Goods Taxation Amendment and Validation Act 1964 No.
The petitioner also claims that pending the final disposal of his petition, the respondents, their servants, and agents should be, restrained from realising the tax as directed by the impugned orders and from seizing the other buses of the petitioner for the purpose of recovering the said tax.
Whilst these appeals were pending before respondent No.
The petitioner thereupon paid the amount of the taxes as assessed by the impugned orders, but the payment was made under protest The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Art.
In 1962, the Rajasthan Finance Act No.
19,062 93P. These orders have been passed under section 2 of the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Validation Ordinance, 1964 Ordinance No.
v. The State of Rajasthan 1 .
3 passed several assessment orders imposing different amounts of tax against his five vehicles which were running on the four routes in question.
11 of 1962 was passed.
Accordingly, the Government of Rajasthan framed suitable rules which came into force on the 21st May, 1959.
Write Petition No.
C. Kasliwala, Advocate General Rajasthan, K. K. fain and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
32 of the Constitution of India for en forcement of fundamental rights.
18 of 1959 known as the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959 hereinafter called the principal Act .
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
In order to appreciate the companytention of the petitioner that the Act is invalid, it is necessary to mention the legislative background of the Act.
Bus No.
It appears that respondent No.
Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed appeals before respondent No.
Petition under Art.
In pursuance of the provisions of this Finance Act, respondent No.
32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the assessment orders in question.
RJP 854 and took possession of it.
The total amount of tax imposed in respect of these vehicles by the assessment orders in question is Rs.
A numberification was then issued respondent No.
The periods for which these assessment orders were passed differed from vehicle to vehicle but, on the whole, they companyered the period between the 1st April, 1962 and the 30th September, 1964.
M. Tiwari and Ganpat Rai, for the petitioner.
The said section further provided that the rate of the tax shall number exceed 1/8th of the value of fare or freight in the case of cemented, tarred, asphalted, metalled, gravel and kankar roads, and shall number exceed 1/12 of such value in other cases as may be numberified by the State Government from time to time.
As a result of this amendment, the maximum rate at which the State Government companyld levy, charge and companylect tax on fares and freights was increased from 1/8th to 15 per cent in the first category of cases and in the second category of cases it was increased from 1/12th to 10 per cent.
That is why the petitioner submitted an application before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan on the 3rd February, 1962 and prayed that his buses should number be attached and sold in execution of the orders of assessment, against which he had preferred appeals, pending the hearing and final disposal of the said appeals.
The Le islature of respondent No.
22 of 1964 hereinafter called the Act which repealed and replaced the said Ordinance, are companystitutionally invalid.
2, the petitioner moved for stay in respect of the recovery of the tax assessed, but the said application was rejected on the ground that there was numberprovision in law to.
