TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Invalidation of Lump Sum Tax Payment under Himachal Pradesh Act: Supreme Court Ruling</h1> <h3>STATE 0F H.P. Versus NURPUR PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS UNION & ORS.</h3> The High Court of Himachal Pradesh ruled in Civil Appeal Nos. 6466-6476 of 1995 that confining tax payment to a lump sum under the Himachal Pradesh ... - Issues involved:The judgment involves challenges to amendments in the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 and the Rules framed thereunder, focusing on the validity of confining tax payment to a lump sum.Civil Appeal Nos. 6466-6476 of 1995:The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed writ petitions challenging the amendments, ruling that limiting tax payment to a lump sum rendered the provision invalid. The proviso under challenge in Section 4 of the Act pertained to assessing tax at a lump sum for certain motor vehicles, disregarding actual fares collected from passengers. The Court found this amendment beyond the scope of the Act, emphasizing that tax must be levied considering all fares in respect of passengers carried. The State was directed to assess passenger tax based on Section 3 of the Act, dismissing the civil appeals with costs.Civil Appeals Nos. 6477/1995 and 6480/1995:The High Court's judgment invalidated the levy and collection of tax for a specific period, but limited the declaration prospectively from October 1, 1992. Some operators contested this, arguing against the application of prospective over-ruling. The Supreme Court held that once the High Court deemed the provisions invalid, all collections made under them should stand invalidated. Therefore, the direction for prospective over-ruling was set aside, and the High Court's judgment was upheld for the period between April 1, 1991, and September 30, 1992, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
