9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (11) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was some years back challenged with regard to retrospective operation of the Act. This Court in Civil Appeals No. 16 and 17 of 1963-Rai Ram Krishna & Ors. v. State of Bihar decided on 11 March, 1963 and reported in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1667 upheld the retrospective operation of the Bihar Act. Section 3 of the Bihar Act is the charging section. That section provides that on and from the date on which this Act is deemed to have come into force there shall be levied and paid to the State Government a tax on passengers and goods carried by a public service motor vehicle. The other two relevant provisions in the Bihar Act are sub-sections (2) and (3) of the charging section 3 of the Act. The said sub-section (2) provides that every owner shall, in the manner prescribed in section 9, pay to the State Government, the amount of tax due under section 3. Sub-section (3) provides that every passenger carried by a public service motor vehicle and every person whose goods are carried by such vehicle shall be liable to pay to the owner the amount of tax payable under section 3 and every owner shall recover such tax from such owner or person as the case may be. When the Act came into force such tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners are all holders of permit in respect of public service motor vehicles. The main contention of the petitioners is that the vehicles are hired by booking or forwarding agencies who have direct link with persons whose goods are carried on the hired transport vehicles and they collect the fare and freight as well as the tax, and, therefore, they should be liable for the tax and not the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the definition of "owner" speaks of the following two types of owners. The first type is the owner of a public service vehicle in respect of which a permit has been granted to such owner. The second category of owner is the person who is in charge of such a vehicle for the time being and where a vehicle is in charge of such a person he is alone to be regarded as an owner of the vehicle. The petitioners contend that the words "or any person for the time being in charge of such vehicle" in the definition of "owner" would indicate that the transport or booking agencies which would take the public service motor vehicle on hire would be owners within the definition of the word without being permit holders in respect of these public service motor vehicles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o them before their goods are carried. The petitioners rely on the provisions in section 3(3) of the Bihar Act that the person whose goods are carried shall be liable to pay to the owner and every owner shall recover such tax from such passengers or persons as the case may be in support of the contention that the owner is merely a depositor of the tax if the tax is paid to the owner. The petitioners rely on section 10(1)(a) of the Bihar Act which provides that any person from whom any money is due or may become due to an owner, who has failed to comply with a notice served upon him under section 9, or any person who holds or may subsequently hold any money for or on account of such owner, may be directed to pay into the Government Treasury the tax and contend that the petitioners who lend their trucks to transport agencies are not liable to pay the tax and the transport agencies can be directed to pay the tax. The Bihar Act and the other Acts in the charging section enact that there shall be levied and paid to the State Government a tax on all passengers and goods carried by public service motor vehicles. The charging section further requires every owner to pay the amount of tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passengers and consignors of goods carried by that vehicle become liable to pay not only fare and freight to the owner but also tax thereon to the owner. The words "or any person for the time being in charge of such vehicle or responsible for the management of the place of business of such owner" indicate that the permit holder will include any person who is in charge of such vehicle of the permit holder or any person who is responsible for the management of the place of business of such owner. The owner cannot escape the liability by stating that any person is for the time being in charge of such vehicles, and, therefore, such person is the owner and not the permit holder. The general rule of construction is not only to look at the word but to look at the context, the collocation and the object of such words relating to such matter and interpret the meaning according to what would appear to be the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use of the words under the circumstances. Sometimes definition clauses create qualification by expressions like "unless the context otherwise requires"; or "unless the contrary intention appears"; or "if not inconsistent with the context or subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able the owner to discharge the liability. If the owner does not make adequate provision in that behalf the owner cannot escape liability by pleading that the hirer of the vehicle is liable to pay tax and the owner is not liable. The intention of these Acts is made clear if reference is made to other similar Acts. The Mysore Act speaks of "operator" meaning any person whose name is entered in the permit as the holder thereof. The Mysore Act speaks of tax being levied and collected on goods carried by stage carriages and further provides that if the operator collects from the passengers fares and freights inclusive of the tax the operator shall pay to the State Government on account of the tax one eleventh of the total amount of fares and freights, inclusive of tax collected by him from the passengers. The definition of "agent" in Rule 2 of the Bihar Public Carrier Rules, 1971 is not applicable to the Bihar Act under which tax is levied on passengers and goods. The Bihar Public Carrier Rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred by clause (ww) of sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 confers power on the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 55 and 56 deal with applications for public carrier's permit, procedure in considering application for public carriers permit and grant of public carrier's permit. Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 states that save as provided in section 61, a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not without such permission operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. Section 61 speaks of transfer of permit on the death of the holder. Therefore, these provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 indicate that a permit cannot be transferred. The permit holder is the owner within the definition of the "owner" in the Bihar Act and other Acts and is also the "operator" within the meaning of the word "operator" in other Acts to which reference has been made. The liability to pay tax is of the permit holder in all cases. For these reasons, the contentions of the petitioners fail. The petitions are dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. P.B.R. Petitions dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
