Rajasthan High Court | Permanent Lok Adalat Has No Jurisdiction Over Vehicle Tax Assessments | Determination And Levy Of Tax Not A Public Utility Service Under Section 22A(b) | PLA Order Quashed
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Anuroop Singhi held that the Permanent Lok Adalat at Hanumangarh lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute concerning the levy and rate of motor vehicle tax demanded by the Transport Department. The Court directed that the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 01.10.2018 stands quashed and set aside, and allowed the writ petition brought against that order. The Court further recorded that the stay application and all other pending applications stand disposed of by virtue of the final decision.
The proceedings concerned a challenge to an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), Hanumangarh, in Case No. 17/2018, arising out of an auction of vehicles conducted pursuant to a Notification dated 16.12.2017. The auction was issued by the PLA for the sale of certain vehicles. In those auction proceedings, one purchaser acquired a Mahindra Jeep and a Tata Nano upon payment of the requisite amount. Following the purchase, the buyer applied for registration of the vehicles with the Transport Department.
Upon considering the application for registration, the Transport Department assessed tax as per the prevailing rules and issued a demand notice calling upon the purchaser to deposit the applicable tax for registration of the vehicles. The purchaser, aggrieved by the tax demand raised by the Transport Department, approached the Permanent Lok Adalat by filing an application seeking exemption from the tax amount raised, and further sought assessment of tax based on rates prevailing in the year 2012.
After hearing both sides, the Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the application and directed the Transport Department to assess the tax on the vehicles in question based on the rates that were prevailing in the year 2012. The Transport Department thereafter approached the High Court in writ proceedings seeking to set aside the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat.
Before the High Court, the petitioner—being the Transport Department—contended that the Permanent Lok Adalat lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application relating to the levy and imposition of State motor vehicle tax. It was submitted that the subject matter of taxation as raised before the Permanent Lok Adalat does not fall within the ambit of Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which defines “public utility service” for the purposes of Chapter VI-A of that Act. It was urged that the imposition of tax on vehicles plying in the State does not constitute a “public utility service” within the meaning of Section 22A(b), and therefore could not be adjudicated by the Permanent Lok Adalat. On that basis, the petitioner submitted that the Permanent Lok Adalat acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the application seeking tax assessment at the rates prevailing in 2012 and in issuing directions to the Transport Department.
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat was just and proper. However, during the course of submissions, the respondents were not in a position to refute the specific contention regarding whether the subject matter involved was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
The High Court proceeded to consider the submissions and examined the record, including the factual matrix concerning the auction notification, the subsequent purchase of two vehicles by the buyer, the application for registration, the tax demand raised by the Transport Department, and the application filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat seeking exemption and assessment at earlier rates.
The Court also set out the text of Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which defines “public utility service” to mean specified categories including transport service for carriage of passengers or goods by air, road, or water; postal, telegraph or telephone service; supply of power, light or water by any establishment; system of public conservancy or sanitation; service in hospital or dispensary; and insurance service; and further includes any service that may be declared by the Central or State Government by notification in public interest for purposes of Chapter VI-A.
In this context, the proceedings focused on whether the determination and levy of motor vehicle tax by the State Government could be brought within the scope of “public utility service” such that a Permanent Lok Adalat would possess jurisdiction to adjudicate on the rate at which tax ought to be assessed in relation to vehicles purchased in an auction and presented for registration.
The Court recorded that the facts show that, after the vehicles were purchased in the auction proceedings and an application for registration was made, the registration authority passed an order for imposition of tax at the prevailing rate. The aggrieved purchaser approached the Permanent Lok Adalat for exemption of the rate of tax imposed on those vehicles, and the Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the application by directing assessment based on the rates prevailing in 2012.
In addressing the central question concerning jurisdiction, the Court set out the statutory provision and then made the following observations: “A bare perusal of the definition of ‘Public Utility Services’ mentioned hereinabove shows that the rate of imposition of tax by the Transport Department does not fall under the category of Public Utility Services and, therefore, at what rate, the tax will be imposed on the particular vehicle cannot be brought into the net of Public Utility Services as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987.”
The Court further “recorded” that the mere mention of “transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water” in Section 22A(b) does not extend the jurisdiction of a Permanent Lok Adalat to issues of taxation. As stated by the Court: “Merely because transport vehicle for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water has been mentioned in the definition of Section 22A(b) of the Act of 1987, it will not bring the subject matter of imposition of tax within the jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat for adjudication.”
The Court then clarified the scope of the provision with respect to State taxation, stating: “It is further clear that determination and levy of tax by the State Government cannot be considered as one of the services enshrined under Public Utility Services and, therefore, does not fall under the scope of Section 22 A (b) of the Act of 1987.”
On the basis of the above analysis and the statutory framework, the Court concluded that the Permanent Lok Adalat lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the application relating to the imposition and rate of tax for the vehicles in question. The Court stated:
“In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the subject matter involved in the present case was not within the jurisdiction of PLA to be decided and, therefore, PLA has committed an error, while entertaining the application filed by the respondent No.1 by passing the order dated 01.10.2018.”
The Court issued clear and specific directions concerning the adjudication and outcome of the proceedings. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
“In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition merits acceptance, the same is allowed and the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh is quashed and set aside.”
In addition, the Court addressed the status of interlocutory applications pending in the matter, and stated: “Stay application and other pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: M. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG
For the Respondents: Mr. N. K. Sharma
Case Title: District Transport Officer, Hanumangarh v. Banwarilal & Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:35090-DB
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9/2019
Bench: Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur; Justice Anuroop Singhi
