| Headnote |
·100 MUNJCJPAL BOARD, NAJNJTAL & ANR. A v. BRJJ MOHAN CHANDRA & ANR. October 26, 1970 [S. M. SIKRI, V. BHARGAVA AND J. D. 9yA, JJ.] B U.P. Municipuliries Act JI of 1916, s. 128(1)-/f (IU/horise.1• <·ol/ection of a to/l-1ax levi~d on vehicle.~ fron1 pa.~sengers travelling in ti vehicle. While thefirstrespondent was travelling by a U.P. GovernJ11cnt Road· ways busfromBhowalito N.ainital in May 1967,toll-taxwas demanded C fromhim at thenppcllant'smunicipal toll barrierbut he declinedto pay. The ExecutiveOfficer, MunicipalBoard, Nainital, th~reupon filed a complaintagainst him under s. 190(1)(c) Cr.P.C., for breachof rule1 ofthe Rules madeunder s. 153(a)of the U .. P. MunicipalitiesAct. 1916. Thefirst respondenfscontention was that tile levy of toll-taxby the MunicipalBoard on passengerswas ullra vires the taxing powet of the Board.· Duringthe pendencyof theseproceedings,on an applicationmade by the firstrespondentunder s. 561A, Or.P.C., the HighCourtquashed D those proceedingsholding that clause(vii) of s. 128(1)of the Munici palitiesAct did notauthorisethe levyof toll-taxon passengersand that a. connectednotification also' levied tax only on vehicles and not on passengers. The Ruleimposingaa obligationon thepassengersto pay the tollwasthereforestruck down as ultra :vires. In appealto this Court it was contended inter alia thattoll imposed ·on thevehicleenteringthe Municipalitycould legallybe realisedfrom E the passengerscarried by it becauseof theirnexuswith the entryof the vehicle •. HELD :Dismissingthe appeal, Thetollimposedon theladenvehicles is expre'5ly made payableby theperson-in-chargeof suchvehicles. No liabilityhas bcsed onthevehicleenteringthe municipality couldlegallybe realisedfrom the passengerscarried by it because of theirnexuswith the entryof thevehicle.Before examining thiscontention we mayin passingturn to cl. (vii)of s. 128(1) of :theActwhichreads : "128 ( 1 ) Subjectto anygeneral rules or special ordersof the State Government,in thisbehalf,the taxes whic..li. a boardmay imposein thewhole or partof a municipality are- (vii)a tollon vehiclesand otherconveyances, ani mals, andladencooliesenteringthe municipality; " This clause in clearand una111biguous termsspeaksof a toll on· vehiclesand otherconveyances,animals and ladencoolies entering the municipality. It doesnot takewithinits fold the passengerscarried by vehicles to betaxed,with the result that impositionof taxon passengersby theMunicipalBoard would ·be incompetentunder this clause. And this in fact -.vas not disputedat theBar. Theargumentof nexuswas alsoraisedin theHighCourt;but it was repelledby thatCourtwhichobserved as follows: "It was urgedthat whena taxon conveyance · is levied,some provisionhas to bemadefor theassessment andcollectionof thattax andsomeprovision m.ide about thepersons.from whomthat tax maybe recover ed ;µid that if there is any reasonable or ratio::al nexus betweenthe levyof thetaxand the personsfrom whom thattax maybe recovered,the MunicipalBoard would bewithinits rightsto realisethetaxfrom the persons sonamed. It is difficult,however;to applythe nexus theoryin a manner so as toenablethe Municipal Bo.ird to recoverthe toll-taxfrom the passengerstravelling in a busotherwisethere will be nodistinctionleft between a vehicles-taxand a passengertax. Whena toll-taxis A B c D E F G H A B c D F. F G H MUNICIPAL BOARD v. BRIJ MOHAN (Dua, J.) 703 levied on a vehicle,it is levied at thepointof itsentry within the municipallimits. It is obviously,therefore, theperson, who is in chargeof thevehicleor who makes an attempt to takethe vehicleinside the municipallimits, who takes upon himselfthe responsibiltyfor the pay mentof the toli..tax. There is noquestionof there be ing any nexus betweenthe levy of thetax on thevehicle and the personssitting inside the same. In the caseof vehicles plyingon hirethe driver or conductorof the vehiclecan, of course,charge the amountoftax which hasto bepaid,from the passengersin additionto the farewhich is normallycharged from them.'' Thesameargument was repeatedbefore us. The sub~is sion seems to bebasedlargelyon thepolicyof the law to ensure thecol!ectionof taxes by preventing. fraudulentevasion. In 01ver to appreciateits cogency we mayappropriatelyadvert to the Rulesmade by the State Governmentin 1922under s. 296 read with s. 153(a)of theAct, wJth respect to the assessment :rnd collectionof tollsin theNainitalMunicipality. So far as xe; levant for thepurposes of thisappeal,according to r. (1), no personcan bringwithinthe limits of theNainitalMunicipalicy anyvehiclein respectof whichthe toll-taximposedunder s. 128 (1 )(vii) of theAct is leviableuntil the tollduein respect there ofhasbeen paid to such muharrir and at suchbarrier as the - Boardmay fromtime to timeappoint. Under r. 2(a), in the caseof ladenmotorvehiclesthe loadrecordedin thechalanor invoiceaccompanying the vehicle has to beaccepted by the muharrir forpurposesof assessing the toll. If nochalan orinvoiceaccompaniesthe vehiclethe load is to beassumedfor the . purposesof assessmentto exceedthree maundsunless it is ascertainedto be less by weighmea:it undertakenat therequest of theperson-in-chargeof thevehicle.The toll on a laden motQr vehiclehas to be paidby theperson-in-chargeof thevehicleand tollon a passenger is to bepaidby thepassenger.Rule 2 (b) providesthat whenany person-in-chargeof a ladenvehicleenters themunicipallimits such personshall pay the tollto the muharrir at the barrier aind the muharrir shalltendera face-value-ticketwith couponattached for the amountto theoersonpayingthe toll. This facevalueticketcan be examinedby the official appointedfor the purposeand the person brilllging the vehiclewith the municipal limits is boundunder r. 3 topermitsuch examination. Under r. 2( c), everydriver ol1 a motorlorry or othervehicleplying for hireand everydriverof a privatemotor cain or vehiclecarrying passengersor goods has to ston his lorryor vehicleat thetollbarrier fora reasonable tinie to enablethe toll staff to recover proper toll tax frompassengersand on the goods loaded therein.The pro- 704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 S.C.R. visioncontainedin r. 2(a) thatthe tollon a passengershall be paidby thepassengeron whichreliancehas principallybeen , placed, is of 110 assistance t0 the apgellants beacuse it postulates impositionof tollon passengersand, therefore,unless a toll has 'been imposedon passengersnone <:an be demanded from them under this clause.Similarlythe notification(No. 1450/XI-476 E) dated19th August,1921, accordingto whid1toll-taxunder s. 128 ( 1) (vii)of theActsanctioned by the U.P. StateGovernment under s. 135 (2) oftheAct is leviedon motorvehiclesother 1han cars at therateof Re. I/- perpassengercarried by them and at therate of Rs. 2/- per vehicle is unhelpfulto theappellants. As alreadyobserved by us, 1!10 toll-tax has beenimposedon passengers and indeed it wasconcededon behalfof theappellants,both here and in theHigh Court,that the Boardhad neverinte.ndedto impose ataxon passengers. Tt is alsonoteworthythat the tollimposedon theladenvehicles is expresslymade payable by _the person-in chargeof suchvehiclesand accordingto theschemeof therules whichprovidethe procedurefor collectingsuch tolls,the person bringingthe vehiclewithin the municipallimits (who is supposed to b~ theperson-in-charge) is enjoinedto permitexaminationof theface-value-ticketwhen demandedafter the vehicle's entry ·in- to thoselimits.No liability has been fired on the passengersfor paymentof the_ tax imposedon thevehiclescarrying them and ·entering the NainitalMunicipality.The liabilityfor the payment ot suchtax having been fixed only on the pr.non-in-charge of the vehicleand not on the passengers it is difficultto appreciatehow theauthoritiesentrusted with the dutyof realisingthe samecnn demandit fromthe passengers. Our attention was notinvitedto anyprovisionof Jaw under whichthe passengerscan be held liableto paythe toll-taximposedon thevehicles.Neither any precedentnor anyprinciple was citedat theBar in supportof thesubmissionthat merelybecausethe passengers were carried by the vehiclesthe toll-taximposedon theentrvof thevehicles intothe municipal .limits couldbe demandedfrom them. On the factsand circumstances of this case ·and on the arguments addressedwe are,therefore,unable to holdthat the passengers carriedby thevehiclesentering the municipalityof Nainitalcan belegallycalled upon to paythe tax imposedon thevehicles. Asa lastresorta faintattemptwas madeby tile appellants' counselto rely on s. 164of theAct in bar of thejurisdictionof theHighCourtin entertainingthe petitionunder s. 561 A. Cr. P.C.and in holdingthe impugnedassessmentand liabilityof the passengers to be una11thorisedand illegal.This argumentignores thevitalpointthat if the impugnedlevv is outside the Act •hen thissectioncannot operateand the jurisdictionof theHighCourt A 8 c D F G H B MUNICil'AL BOARD V. BRIJ MOHAN tD11a, /,) 705 to quash the proceedingsrelating to the levy which is ultra vir~s the taxing power of the Board UI1der the Actcannotbe taken away to theprejudiceof theaggrievedcitizen. This submi;sion is accordinglyrepelled. In the final resultthis appeal fails and is dismissed. R.K.J:'.S. Appeal dismissed. |
