Arun Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Others

We have heard Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, the petitioner appearing in person and Sri S.P. Kesarwani, learned standing counsel appears for the respondents. The petitioner is a practising advocate of this court. By this writ petition, he has prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give 12 per cent trade tax exemption to the petitioner on the purchase of the vehicle Indigo (L.S.) by the petitioner during the Saifai Car Mela, and declare the conditions of Government Order dated December 20, 2005, as illegal.

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 4, to register the vehicle of the petitioner after its delivery by respondent No. 5 at his headquarter at Allahabad.

(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the 2 conditions of impugned G.O. dated December 20, 2005 issued by the State Government regarding extending of trade tax exemptions only to the vehicles financed by Financial Institution based a Saifai and registration of vehicles at Saifai, District Etawah.

(d) issue any suitable writ, order or direction in which this honourable court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(e) award of the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.

The State Government issued a notification dated December 20, 2005, under clause (c) of section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. 15 of 1948) to exempt the sale of taxable goods made at Safai Mahotsava, Etawah during the period from December 21, 2005 to December 27, 2005 (both inclusive) from payment of tax under the Act, subject to the conditions as follows :

(i) During the aforesaid period, sale, delivery and payment shall be made at the site of the said Mahotsava and in the presence of the seller and purchaser. The exemption shall be confined to the retail sales and shall not be available to sales made by a dealer to another dealer.

(ii) The exemption shall not be available on the sale of the goods with respect to which the tax has already been paid;

(iii) The bills of sales shall be verified by the District Magistrate, Etawah or an officer nominated by him;

(iv) The State Development tax u/s 3H of the said Act shall be paid by dealer liable to pay such tax on their sales during Mahotsava;

(v) In case of sale of vehicles exemption would be available only on sales of such vehicles (two wheeler, four wheeler, tractors, etc.), the sale price whereof does not exceed rupees seven lakhs excluding the amount of trade tax and State development tax;

(vi) Temporary registration of vehicles (two wheelers, four wheelers, tractors, etc.), shall be obtained at the site of the Mahotsava itself;

(vii) The purchaser of a vehicle who purchases after getting loan from a Financial Institution will have to get the amount of his loan at Safai during the period from December 21 to December 27 (both inclusive)

It is submitted by the petitioner that advertisements were published by the dealers of motor vehicles throughout the State, for taking benefits of the exemption at Safai Mahotsava up to December 27, 2005. Taking advantage of the advertisement made by the various vehicle dealers, including M/s. Motor Sales Ltd., M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, the petitioner applied for loan for purchase of a car from State Bank of India, High Court Branch at Allahabad, and made advance payment of Rs. 15,000 on December 17, 2005 to M/s. Motor Sales Ltd., 31 M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad. Thereafter, he made payment of Rs. 4,99,958 including trade tax to the dealer for purchase of Indigo (L.S.) Car, at Allahabad.

Sri Arun Kumar Gupta submits that on account of unreasonable conditions Nos. (vi) and (vii), for obtaining temporary registration of vehicles at the site of the Mahotsava itself, and for obtaining loan from financial institution at Saifai, he was not given the benefit of the exemption by the dealer. He paid the price of the car, at the instance of the dealer at Allahabad and was given delivery of the car at Allahabad.

Sri Gupta submits that condition Nos. (vi) and (vii) are arbitrary and unreasonable. He was also misled by the dealer that he will get exemption, if he purchases a car during the Mahotsava period, for which he had to bear the transportation charges for bringing the vehicle from Saifai to Allahabad. He applied for loan, and made full payment to the dealer M/s. Motor Sales Ltd., M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad on December 21, 2005, i.e., on the first day when the exemption period started, and is thus entitled to exemption, and consequently refund of tax paid by him.

The period of exemption is long over. More than six years have passed since then.

We are not impressed by the contentions raised by the petitioner. Clause (vii) of the Government Order dated December 20, 2005, did not strictly provide that the loans were to be obtained from financial institutions having its offices at Saifai. Clause (vii) may be interpreted in a manner that a person having applied and received the loan amount from a bank or financial institution was required to pay the amount at Saifai. The condition of obtaining temporary registration of vehicle at Saifai is in consonance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A temporary registration has to be made at a plaice where vehicle is purchased and transported. The permanent registration has to be applied at a place where the person is permanently residing, or at a place where the vehicle is to be used.

In the present case, we find substance in the contention of Sri S.P. Kesarwani, learned standing counsel that the petitioner had made the advance payment of Rs. 15,000 on December 17, 2005, i.e., much before the notification dated December 20, 2005. The loan was sanctioned by the bank at Allahabad. The payment was made by the petitioner, and the Vehicle was delivered to him at Allahabad. The petitioner also got the first registration of the vehicle at Allahabad. In the circumstances, the petitioner did not fulfill any of the conditions of exemption provided under the notification. Even if the condition No. (vii) is held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner will not get the benefit of exemption from payment of tax, as he did not fulfill the other conditions of the notification dated December 20, 2005, and thus he is not entitled for any relief from the court. The writ petition is dismissed.