IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.423 of 2004 Decided on: May 28, 2009 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by the notification, dated 3.2.2004, Annexure P-7, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in Transport Department, whereby concession of off days/holidays, in respect of vehicles, not registered in the State of H.P., has been withdrawn, in the matter of payment of Special Road Tax, under Section 3-A of Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1972, hereinafter called the Act. 2. State of Himachal Pradesh has enacted a law in exercise of its power, under Entry No.57 of List-II of Schedule- VII of the Constitution of India, known as Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1972. Section 3-A of the Act provides for levy of tax on all transport vehicles, specified in Schedule-III, which are used or are kept for use in Himachal Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Pradesh, at such rates, as may be specified by the State Government, by notification. Sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act says that State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, and subject to such conditions, as it may specify in the notification, exempt either totally or partially, any class of motor vehicle or any motor vehicle, belonging to any person or class of persons or any motor vehicle plying on any route or part thereof, from payment of tax. 3. State Government issued a notification on 23rd December, 1999, Annexure P-2, prescribing the rates for levy of tax, under Section 3-A of the Act. There appears a note at the foot of the notification that Special Road Tax to be levied and charged shall be payable in advance, allowing two days holidays/off days, in respect of every month for maintenance and repairs of the transport vehicles. Petitioner, who is a State owned Transport Corporation of Punjab, had been paying the advance tax, claiming allowance of two holidays/off days for every month. 4. Government of Himachal Pradesh issued the impugned notification dated 3.2.2004, Annexure P-7, withdrawing the aforesaid concession of off days/holidays, in respect of vehicles, not registered within the State of H.P. w.e.f. 1.1.2000. Vehicles of the petitioners are not registered within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner, fearing that it may be called upon to pay tax w.e.f. 1.1.2000, even in respect of concessional holidays/off days, filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of notification, Annexure P-7. …3… 5. Challenge has been made on two grounds. First, the notification could not have been given retrospective effect. Secondly, the notification is discriminatory and violative of Articles 301 and 303 of the Constitution of India. 6. As regards the first ground of challenge, the State has issued another notification, Annexure R-3, whereby notification, Annexure P-7, has been given effect to from the date of its issue i.e. 3.2.2004. Therefore, the first ground goes. 7. As regards the second ground of challenge, Section 14 of the Act gives authority to the State Government to exempt any vehicle or class of vehicles, belonging to any person or class of persons, totally or partially, from payment of tax, under the Act. This provision of the Act has not been challenged in the present writ petition. Under this provision, State Government is competent to issue a notification like the one, under challenge, i.e. Annexure P-7, to partially exempt the vehicles, registered within the State, from payment of tax for two days in a month, on account of time required for repair/maintenance etc. of the vehicles. Thus, the second ground of challenge is without merit. 8. In view of the above stated position, writ petition is dismissed. . (R.B. Misra), J. May 28, 2009(ss) (Surjit Singh ), J.