Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Nakhat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 August, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (1 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11535/2023
Khuman Singh S/o Smrith Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o.
166, Bhawanipura, Pokaran, Ward No. 19, Pokaran, Dist.
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. At Present 374, Rajputon Ka Bera,
Chandsama, Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur- Rajasthan. (Rj 24 Pa
4016).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Transport
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Parivahan
Bhawan, Sahkar Bhawan Marg, Jaipur - 302005-
Rajasthan.
2. Union Of India, Through Commissioner, Department Of
Transport Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-
110001.
3. District Transport Officer (Taxation Officer), District
Jodhpur, Bjs Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342006
4. District Transport Officer (Registering Authority), District
Sirohi, Sirohi, Rajasthan 307001
----Respondents
Connected with
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9901/2023
Shivari Devi W/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 48 Years, Resident
Of Vishnoiyon Ka Bass, Dhawa, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner
Cum Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax
Department, R.t.o., Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9997/2023
Parmila Rajpurohit W/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 59
Years, Resident Of 27C, 11Th Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Cum
Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (2 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (Raj)
3. The Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax
Department, R.t.o Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10020/2023
Jogendra Choudhary S/o Shri Pokar Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 36 Years, Resident Of A81, Sharmikpura, Masuriya,
Jodhpur (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Cum
Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (Raj)
3. The Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax
Department, R.t.o Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10068/2023
Govind Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Mohan Lal Choudhary, Aged
About 70 Years, Resident Of A10, Sharmikpura, Masuriya,
Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Cum
Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. The Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax
Department, R.t.o., Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10072/2023
Gavri Devi W/o Pokar Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of
Shramikpura Masuriya Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner
Cum Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax
Department, R.t.o., Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10500/2023
Raksha W/o Jitendra, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Sarkari
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (3 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
School, Pal Road, Kheme Ka Kua, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner
Cum Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. The Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax
Department, R.t.o., Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10522/2023
Nathu Ram Puniya S/o Shri Baga Ram, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident Of P.no. 9, Balaji Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner
Cum Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. The Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax
Department, R.t.o., Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10526/2023
Puna Ram S/o Jugta Ram, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of
Dhandhniya Bhaila, Shergarh, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner
Cum Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. The Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax
Department, R.t.o., Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10581/2023
Shivari Devi W/o Late Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 48 Years,
Resident Of Vishnoiyon Ka Bass, Dhawa, Jodhpur (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner
Cum Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Th Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (Raj).
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (4 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
3. The Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax
Department, R.t.o. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10781/2023
Khuman Singh S/o Shri Karan Singh, Aged About 69 Years,
Resident Of 722, Hanslaw Ka Bera, Ward No. 58, Jodhpur (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Cum
Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (Raj)
3. The Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax
Department, R.t.o., Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11080/2023
Vikram Singh S/o Shri Khuman Singh, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of 722, Hanslaw Ji Ka Bera Warnd No. 58, Jodhpur
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner
Cum Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. The Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax
Department, R.t.o., Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11536/2023
Khuman Singh S/o Smrith Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
166, Bhawanipura, Pokaran, Ward No. 19, Pokaran, Dist.
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. At Present 374, Rajputon Ka Bera,
Chandsama, Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (RJ 19 PB
8236)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Transport
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Parivahan
Bhawan, Sahkar Bhawan Marg, Jaipur-302005,
Rajasthan.
2. Union Of India, Through Commissioner, Department Of
Transport, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi
110001.
3. District Transport Officer (Taxation Officer), District
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (5 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
Jodhpur, Bjs Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342006.
4. District Transport Officer (Registering Authority), District
Jodhpur, Bjs Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342006.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11672/2025
Karan Singh S/o Shri Ugam Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Madho Singh Ki Dhani, Ketu Dhirpura, Balesar Satta,
Dheerpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
Transport Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11685/2025
Derawar Singh S/o Shri Kan Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Ward No. 9, Bonada, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
Transport Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11722/2025
Achal Singh S/o Shri Ugam Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Madho Singh Ki Dhani, Ketoo Dheerpura, Balesar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (6 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
Transport Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11759/2025
Karan Singh S/o Shri Ugam Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Madho Singh Ki Dhani, Ketu Dhirpura, Balesar Satta,
Dheerpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
Transport Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11761/2025
Pep Singh S/o Shri Song Singh, Aged About 70 Years, R/o. Bari
Sidd, Bari Seer, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
Transport Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11779/2025
Pukh Singh S/o Shri Bhagwat Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Chhadi, Rohina, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (7 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
Transport Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11800/2025
Achal Singh S/o Shri Ugam Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Madho Singh Ki Dhani, Ketoo Dheerpura, Balesar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
Transport Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11801/2025
Shyam Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Rajputo Ka Baas, Dantal, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
Transport Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11803/2025
Bhikam Giri S/o Pratap Giri, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 98
Swamiyo Ki Dhani, Kui Jodha, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (8 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
Transport Officer, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11805/2025
Nakhat Singh S/o Shri Ugam Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Mokamgarh, Dheerpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
Transport Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11809/2025
Pep Singh, S/o. Shri Song Singh, Aged About 70 Years, R/o.
Bari Sidd, Bari Seer, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
Transport Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11841/2025
Padam Singh Rathore S/o Shri Sumer Singh, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Setrawa, Shergarh, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Transport, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Taxation Officer, Department Of Motor Tax, Regional
Transport Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (9 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari
Mr. Deven Maheshwari,
Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore with
Mr. Ashok Godara. Ms Saumya
Choudhary. Mr. Manish Bhunwal for
Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with
Mr. Yuvraj Singh Rathore.
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG with
Mr. Deepak Chandak
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Order
Reportable
Judgment Reserved on : 18/08/2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 22/08/2025
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11535/2023 :
1. The present writ petition raises a challenge to the
amendment made by Transport Department, Government of
Rajasthan by Notification dated 24.02.2021, whereby, a new
category at S.No.7(a)(iii) has been inserted in the existing
Notification dated 10.07.2019. Challenge has further been made
to the notice issued by the respondents in Form M.T.R. dated
24.03.2023 and demand notice issued in Form M.T.Q. dated
21.06.2023. A further declaration has been sought to the effect
that the petitioner be assessed and taxed as per S.No.7(a)(ii) of
Notification dated 10.07.2019 read with notification dated
24.02.2021 and be granted exemption thereunder.
2. Brief facts of present writ petition relevant for consideration
of the above challenge are that the petitioner is the registered
owner of a motor vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-24 PA 4016,
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (10 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
registered on 15.06.2017 as a ‘Bus’ with body type ‘Sleeper’, and
operating under a valid contract carriage permit for plying vehicle
exclusively within the Revenue Divisional Limits. Vide Notification
dated 10.07.2019 issued under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1951, motor vehicle tax was prescribed on the basis
of the class of vehicle and seating capacity, with ‘body type’
considered only for computation purposes, and the petitioner’s
vehicle accordingly fell under Serial No. 7(a)(ii) of the said
Notification.
3. By Amendment-cum-Exemption Notification dated
24.02.2021, the State Government substituted Serial No. 7(a) of
the 2019 Notification, altered tax rates, and introduced a new
category at Serial No. 7(a)(iii) ‘Sleeper Bus’, thereby imposing a
separate levy based on body type, without extending the
exemptions as made available to Serial Nos. 7(a)(i) and 7(a)(ii). A
further Amendment Notification dated 23.02.2022 enhanced the
exemption for categories under Serial Nos. 7(a)(i) and 7(a)(ii)
from 50% to 70%, but continued to exclude category at Serial No.
7(a)(iii) ‘Sleeper Bus’ from such benefit.
Even subsequent to these amendments, the petitioner was
taxed under S.No. 7(a)(ii) and the tax was accordingly paid by
him. However, vide impugned notices dated 24.03.2023 and
21.06.2023 the impugned demand towards tax was raised by the
District Transport officer (Taxation Officer) for the period
01.04.2022 to 30.06.2023. The petitioner has challenged the vires
of the amendment introducing Serial No. 7(a) (iii) ‘Sleeper Bus’,
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (11 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
contending that the State Government lacked authority to create a
new class of motor vehicle under the guise of taxation and the
same is ultra vires to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and contrary to
the scheme of the original Notification, and that the impugned
demand is without jurisdiction, in violation of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, and in breach of the principles of natural justice. Hence
the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned amendment to the Notification dated 10.07.2019 made
vide Notification dated 24.02.2021, whereby, a new category
‘Sleeper Bus’ was inserted at Serial No. 7(a)(iii), is arbitrary,
illegal and without jurisdiction. He submitted that under the
Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, the State
Government is empowered only to levy motor vehicle tax on the
basis of the class of motor vehicles and their seating capacity as
per the parent Notification, whereas the classification of motor
vehicles is within the exclusive domain of the Central Government
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. By introducing ‘Sleeper Bus’
as a separate taxable class on the basis of body type, the State
Government has acted beyond its legislative competence.
5. He further submitted that Article 265 of the Constitution of
India mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by
authority of law, which means that there must be a valid law
authorizing the levy and the collection of tax must be in
accordance therewith. The Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,
1951 does not authorize the creation of a new class of motor
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (12 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
vehicles, and a bare perusal of the parent Notification dated
10.07.2019 shows that the levy is based on the class of motor
vehicles and their seating capacity, not their body type. The
impugned amendment changes the very basis of taxation by
substituting ‘body type’ for ‘class of vehicle’, thereby altering the
basic structure of the parent Notification, which is impermissible in
law.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
“Explanation” in the original Notification, which continues to
remain, stipulates that each sleeper berth shall be counted as two
seats for computation of tax, therefore, the petitioner’s vehicle,
having both sleeper berths and seats, clearly falls under Serial No.
7(a) (ii) and is entitled to the exemption provided there under.
However, by placing the petitioner’s vehicle under Serial No. 7(a)
(iii), the respondents have denied the exemption without any
rational basis, resulting in discrimination between vehicles of the
same class, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
7. He further submitted that the levy must be in consonance
with the registration certificate of the vehicle, issued under the
Motor Vehicles Act, which in the present case describes the
petitioner’s vehicle as a ‘Bus’. The term ‘Sleeper Bus’ is not
defined as a class of vehicle under any statute; it appears only in
the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, as a body type
specification for construction norms and not as a classification for
taxation. The Central Government alone, under Section 41 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, is empowered to notify classes of vehicles, and
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (13 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
the State Government cannot, under the guise of amending tax
rates, create new classes for the purpose of imposing higher tax.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned amendment
also violates Article 301 of the Constitution as it imposes a
pecuniary burden which directly and immediately restricts the
freedom of trade and commerce within the State by compelling
operators to raise passenger fares. Such restriction is not saved
by Article 304(b), as the mandatory proviso thereto has not been
complied with. He further submitted that the powers under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,
1951 are not unfettered and must be exercised reasonably,
keeping in mind the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which the
respondent authority has failed to do.
9. Assailing the demand notice dated 21.06.2023, it was
submitted that the same has been issued in gross violation of Rule
8 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, inasmuch as
neither reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
petitioner, nor the notice was accompanied by any computation of
tax nor certified copy of the order was given to him. The initial
notice in Form M.T.R dated 24.03.2023 proposed levy for the
period 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023, but the impugned demand in
Form M.T.Q covers the period 01.04.2022 to 30.06.2023, which is
inconsistent and illegal. Moreover, the petitioner has been taxed
under Serial No. 7(a) (iii) instead of Serial No. 7(a) (ii), thereby
denying the applicable exemption as per new clause (iii-a).
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (14 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
creation of the third category of a vehicle in Serial No. 7(a) of the
notification dated 24.02.2021 has entailed into the denial of
exemption granted to the petitioner in the unamended provision in
categories provided in Serial No. 7(a)(i) and 7(a)(ii). He further
submitted that the denial of the exemption to the petitioner in
these circumstances becomes relevant when the category of
‘sleeper bus’ has not been defined under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. He submitted that creation of a ‘sleeper bus’ category is a
clear discrimination vis-a-vis other buses mentioned at Serial No.
7(a)(i) and 7(a)(ii) as no exemption has been granted to the
‘sleeper buses’ mentioned in the category.
11. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that even if a category of vehicle in the name of ‘sleeper bus’ at
S.No. 7(a)(iii) has been created by the respondents, then the
exemption granted to the category-(i) and (ii) mentioned in Serial
No. 7(a) cannot be denied to the petitioner, if the ‘sleeper bus’ is
plied within the one revenue divisional area. He further submitted
that the discussion for grant of concessional rates to the buses
mentioned in category at S.No.7(a)(i) and (ii) was centering
around those buses which are plied within one revenue divisional
area and therefore, on the same count, if the sleeper coach buses
are permitted to be plied in one revenue divisional area, the
benefit of concessional rate of tax should have been made
available to the category at S.No.7(a)(iii) also.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (15 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in many
other States, the category of ‘sleeper bus’ has been defined and
the rate of tax has been imposed categorizing it as a different
category whereas in the State of Rajasthan, the category of
‘sleeper bus’ has not been defined anywhere and therefore, levy of
tax on the body type of the vehicle is de hors the law.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that the so-called
substitution under the amendment has, in reality, introduced a
new class of vehicles for higher taxation under the garb of altering
tax rates. This is a colorable exercise of power which virtually
cripples the petitioner’s business and adversely impacts public
transport services. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prays
that the notification dated 24.2.2021 (Annex.5) inserting the class
of motor vehicle as ‘Sleeper Bus’ at S.No. 7(a)(iii) to the parent
notification dated 10.07.2019 be quashed and set aside and as a
consequence, the notices issued in Form MTR dated 24.03.2023
and Form MTQ dated 21.06.2023 be quashed.
14. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the following judgments:-
(1). Decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-
(i). Commissioner of Customs V/s M/s Dilip
Kumar & Company (C.A. No.3327/2007) decided on
30.07.2018.
(ii). Vemareddy Kumarswamy V/s State of AP (CA
No.3066/2000) decided on 13.02.2006.
(iii). Opto Cirtcuit V/s Axis Bank, reported in 2021
CRLJ 1636.
(iv). Tata Chemicals V/s Commissioner of Customs,
reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3571.
(2). Decided by the Rajasthan High Court:-
(i). Sobhagmal Kataria V/s State of Rajasthan,
reported in AIR 1997 RAJ 7.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (16 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
(ii). Dilip Buildcon Ltd. V/s State of Rajasthan (DB
CWP No.5407/2022) decided on 21.04.2022
(Jaipur Bench).
(iii). Rampal Samdani V/s Union of India (DB CWP
No.9022/2021) decided on 12.01.2023.
(3).Decided by the Karnataka High Court:-
(i). Union of India V/s Bundi Technology (Case No. WA
1274/2021) decided on 03.12.2022.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that sleeper buses primarily cater to long-distance passengers by
providing comfortable night travel and their operation and
continuation in adequate numbers is essential in public interest for
ensuring the availability of such important services. Sleeper buses
are permitted to obtain regional permits in the form of contract
carriage permits, as any prohibition on public transport would be
unjustified in a democratic system.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that tax
exemption has not been extended to sleeper buses for obtaining
regional permits, unlike other buses, because granting such
exemption would encourage a large number of sleeper buses to
shift to regional permits. This would adversely affect the
availability of sleeper buses for long-distance night travel,
potentially disrupting night public transport services. The
respondents further submit that such a shift would cause a
significant reduction in the proportion of sleeper buses operating
on long-distance night routes, which is not desirable.
17. Learned counsel further submitted that extending such
exemption to sleeper buses would negatively impact government
revenue and could lead to unhealthy competition in the regional
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (17 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
permit sector, potentially resulting in the collapse of regional
public transport services. According to the respondents, buses
other than sleeper buses operating under regional permits are
economically less viable, as they lack sleeper facilities and carry
fewer passengers and hence, have been encouraged through the
grant of tax exemption.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
creation of the category of ‘sleeper bus’ at Serial No. 7(a) (iii) is
absolutely correct and has nexus to the object sought to be
achieved. Learned counsel submitted that creation of such a new
category is well within the domain of the respondents as Section
2(7) and (29) clearly envisages the kind of motor vehicle and in
pursuance of the same, the Central Government has issued the
notification dated 05.11.2004, whereby, specifications of the types
of motor vehicles have been mentioned. Since the types of vehicle
mentioned in the Central Government notification has not been
further categorized, therefore, keeping in mind the specification of
types of motor vehicles, the State Government is well within its
rights to categorize the same as per their body types and imposed
the tax on such vehicles permissible within the parameters of
Section 4 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951.
Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, the imposition
of tax has been levied keeping in mind the boundaries and
parameters enshrined under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, therefore, no illegality has been
committed. Learned counsel further submitted that even as per
Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, the categorization of the
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (18 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
vehicles is permissible and the present notification has been
issued keeping in mind the provisions of the Rajasthan Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1990. Learned counsel submitted that the validity
of classification of sleeper coach under Rule 7.14A under Chapter
VII of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 was assailed
before this Court and vide judgment dated 04.04.2018 delivered
in CWP No.15421/2010 (M/s. Chandra Shubh Yatra Co. Pvt.
Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan), the validity of Rule 7.14A was
upheld. He therefore, submitted that the amended notification
dated 24.02.2021 is in conformity of law and the same does not
call for any interference by this Court. He therefore, prays that the
writ petition may be dismissed.
19. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
respondent relied upon judgment dated 13.01.2023 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Himachal
Pradesh and Ors. vs. Goel Bus Service, Kullu and Ors.,
reported in (2023) 16 SCC 210, paragraph-54 of which reads as
under:-
“54. Entry 35 of List II conferred the power on the
Parliament as also the State Legislatures to make
laws relating to mechanically propelled vehicles of all
kinds and also to lay down the principles on which
taxes on such vehicles are to be levied. The central
enactment i.e. the law made by the Parliament has
not laid down any principles for levy of taxes. The
State Legislatures had the power to levy taxes not
only under Entries 56 and 57 of List II but also to lay
down the principles under Entry 35 of List III.
Therefore, no repugnancy of any kind could be
alleged or pleaded or proved in the absence of there
being any central law laying down principles of levy
of tax. In view of the above, no repugnancy or
conflict of the State enactment with the central
enactment could be sustained.”
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (19 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
20. As per the reply filed by Union of India, the stand of the
respondent No.2 is also supporting the stand taken by the State of
Rajasthan and submitted that the amendments made vide
notification dated 24.02.2021 are very much within the powers of
the State Government and the word ‘body type’ does not mean
class of vehicles. It was submitted that it is very much within the
powers of the State Government to or not to provide tax
exemption to any motor vehicle.
21. In our considered opinion, the points of consideration in the
present case are:
“(i) Whether the State Government was competent to create
a new taxable category based on “body type” of vehicle
under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951; and
(ii) Whether the classification of “Sleeper Bus” as a separate
category for levy of tax, without extending exemptions, is
arbitrary or violative of constitutional provisions.”
22. Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to quote
the following provisions of law:
“Sections 2(7) & 2(29) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
read as under:
(7) “contract carriage” means a motor vehicle which
carries a passenger or passenger or passengers for
hire or reward and is engaged under a contract,
whether expressed or implied, for the use of such
vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers
mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a
holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any
person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an
agreed rate or sum–
(a) on a time basis, whether or not with reference to any
route or distance; or
(b) from one point to another, and in either case,
without stopping to pick up or set down passengers
not included in the contract anywhere during the
journey, and includes–
(i) a maxicab; and
(ii) a motor cab notwithstanding that separate fares
are charged for its passengers;
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (20 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
“Section 2(29)– “omnibus” means any motor vehicle
constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons
excluding the driver;”
“Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also reads
as under:
“41. Registration, how to be made.–
(1) ……
(2) ……
(3)……
(4) In addition to the other particulars required to
be included in the certificate of registration, it shall
also specify the type of the motor vehicle, being a
type as the Central Government may, having regard
to the design, construction and use of the motor
vehicle, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify.”
“Chapter VIII of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 –
Rule 7.14A reads as under :
7.14A. Sleeper coach.-
(1) Sleeper coach shall mean a Motor Vehicle desgined or
constructed to provide facility to either sleep or sleep and
sit having two tier, arrangement with berth necessarily
on the upper tier shall have 1×1 or 2×1 berth
arrangement. The lower tier may have either of the
following arrangements:
(i) Having berth arrangement of 1×1 or 2×1 berth along
the chassis.
(ii) Having seating arrangement of 2×1 or 1×1 seats
across the chassis
(iii) Any other arrangement subject to approval by State
Transport Authority.”
“Section 4 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,
1951 also reads as under:
“4. Imposition of tax
(2) A tax on motor vehicles other than those covered by
one time tax shall be payable under this section by the
owner of motor vehicle except for the period during which
the owner surrenders the certificate of registration to the
taxation officer, in the prescribed manner, that the vehicle
has remained out of use for such reasons as may be
prescribed, or satisfies the taxation officer that vehicle
has not been used due to following reasons :-
i) that the motor vehicle was restrained from plying
by the competent court or authority;
(ii) that the motor vehicle was involved in an
accident and a report to this effect was made to
the police and because of accident it remained
out of use;
(iii) that the motor vehicle was attached for the
recovery of tax under the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act, 1956 (Act No. 15 of 1956) by the(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (21 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]competent authority or attached under the
warrant of attachment issued by the competent
authority or court and during the period of
attachment the vehicle did not remain in his
possession:”
“Rule 8 of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951
reads as under :
“8. Verification of declaration and computation of tax.-
The Taxation Officer shall satisfy himself every declaration or
additional declaration presented to him is complete in all
respects and that the correct amount of tax or additional tax, as
the case may be, has been paid, according to the rate of tax
prescribed by the State Government from time to time under
the provisions of the Act. If the declaration submitted by owner
of motor vehicle appears to the Taxation Officer to be incorrect
or incomplete, or owner of motor vehicle fails to submit
declaration, the Taxation Officer shall, after giving a notice in
Form M.T.R. and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard
to the owner shall compute the amount of tax payable by the
owner for the period for which the declaration was either not
filed or found to be incorrect, and shall serve a notice on the
owner in the Form M.T.Q. along with a certified copy of the
order, requiring him, to pay the tax and the penalty, so
computed, forthwith. If the owner fails to pay the computed tax
and penalty forthwith or the disputed amount is stayed by the
competent authority under Sec. 14 of the Act, or by a
competent Court, he shall be liable to pay, on the amount of
the tax not paid or on the amount of tax stayed, if found due
later on, as the case may be, simple interest, from the next day
following the day of service of notice of demand at the rate of
1.5% per month] till the default continues:
Provided that the amount of interest shall in no case be more
than the amount of tax due.
Provided [further] that where the vehicle is detained under sub-
sec. (2) of Sec. 17 of the Act for the non-payment of tax before
the issuance of the notice in Form M.T.R. such vehicle shall not
be released unless full tax due in respect of such vehicle has
been paid.”
23. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
gone through the relevant record of the case.
24. A close reading of the provisions mentioned above and
taking into consideration the Registration Certificate of the vehicle
in issue, it is manifest that the vehicle involved in the present case
is a ‘Bus’ which falls in the definition of Sections 2(7) and 2(29) of
Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since the Registering
Authority is required to register a vehicle as per Section 41 of the
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (22 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the vehicle registered in the
present case has been kept under the class of vehicle as ‘Bus’ and
we have no doubt that the ‘Bus’ falls in the definition of Section
2(7) and 2(29) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in Column-1
(Transport Vehicles) type-xii/xxi mentioned in the notification
dated 05.11.2004 issued by the Central Government under
Section 41(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing
specification of type of motor vehicles.
25. Once the type or class of vehicle mentioned hereinabove is
further categorized into the different categories based on seating
capacity/berth arrangement as per the body types defined under
the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990, the State Government is
well within its right to categorize such vehicles for the sake of
imposition of tax. Power to levy tax on motor vehicles is within the
domain of the State and it derives power from Entry 57 of List II-
State List and Entry 35 of List III-Concurrent List of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution of India.
26. Insertion of S.No. 7(a)(iii) cannot be said to be anything
beyond specifying the rate of motor vehicle tax payable on
passenger vehicles, which is very much within the domain and
authority of the State Government in exercise of powers conferred
by Clause (a) and (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 read with
Section 3 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951.
Since, the State Government has not violated the Central Act by
categorizing the contract carriage/omnibus based on the body-
type under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951,
therefore, in the humble opinion of this Court, the respondents
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (23 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
have not exceeded their jurisdiction in categorizing the “Sleeper
Bus” in category at S.No. 7(a)(iii) by amending the parent
notification dated 10.07.2019.
27. We further note that while amending the notification dated
10.07.2019, the category at S.No. 7(a)(iii) of the transport vehicle
has been introduced as “Sleeper Bus” which is not in violation of
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the notification
issued by the Central Government, whereby, the types of the
transport vehicles have been mentioned. Since the category of the
“Sleeper Bus” continues to be in the type and class of the vehicles
mentioned in the Central Act and the definition of the contract
carriage 2(7) and omnibus 2(29) and further the registration
having been done in accordance with Section 41(4) of the Act of
1988, therefore, the same cannot be stated to be violative of the
Central Acts.
28. We further note that even as per the respondent-State
Government, a ‘Sleeper Coach’ and a ‘Sleeper Bus’ is one and the
same and since the “Sleeper Coach” is defined in Rule 7.14A of
the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, therefore, there is no
difficulty in creation of the same for the purpose of taxation by the
respondent-State. The amendment made vide notification dated
24.02.2021 by introduction of the category at Serial No.7 (a)(iii)
of the notification dated 10.07.2019 is well within the domain of
the State Government as the type and class of the vehicle
introduced has not been changed and the same is perfectly in
conformity with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It
is also relevant to note that a similar clause duly exists in the
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (24 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
notification dated 10.07.2019 at S.No.8(b) which refers to ‘sleeper
coaches’ and further Explanation to the said notification provides
that for the purpose of computation of seating capacity of the
sleeper coach, each berth shall be treated equal to 2 seats. Thus,
the concept of capacity of/facility provided in a bus, it being
‘seating’ or ‘sleeper’, very much existed in the parent notification
and insertion of category at S.No. 7(a)(iii) cannot be termed as
creation of a new class of the type of vehicle.
29. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the answer
to the question no.1 raised hereinabove is that the State
Government was very much within its competence in creating a
new taxable category based on body-type of the vehicle in
exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) and clause (c) of
Section 4 read with Section 3 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1951.
30. So far as the second question raised above is concerned, the
State Government vide notification dated 10.07.2019 has specified
the rate of Motor Vehicle Tax payable on the passenger vehicles
registered in the State of Rajasthan or registered under any other
State as per the description of class of motor vehicles and rates of
tax therein.
31. We note that for different class/types of vehicles, different
rates of tax have been prescribed and, therefore, at serial no.7 the
vehicles plying on contract carriage permits have been categorized
on the basis of seating capacity. The State Government has
keeping-in-mind the body-types as per Rajasthan Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1990 has categorized ‘Sleeper Coach’ as one of the
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (25 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
types/class of vehicles in conformity with the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and the notification dated 05.11.2004 issued under Section
41(4) by the Central Government. Since, the Sleeper Bus is a
category of class/type of vehicle mentioned in the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, therefore, levy of tax and grant of exemptions on the
different categories of vehicles of a particular class/type is
perfectly valid and well within the domain of the State
Government.
32. We further note that as per the amendment dated
24.02.2021, the rates of tax have been amended keeping-in-mind
the intelligible differentia of the class of vehicles and the area of
their operation, therefore, there is no infirmity in imposing the
rate of tax mentioned as per the notification dated 24.02.2021. It
is further noted that the rates of tax imposed in the categories
mentioned in the notification dated 24.02.2021 are well within the
boundaries as mentioned in Section 4 of the Rajasthan Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. Since the boundaries prescribed
under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,
1951 have not been breached, therefore, it cannot be said that
the State Government has exceeded in their jurisdiction while
imposing the tax on certain categories of the vehicle.
33. We further note that for the grant of exemption the State
Government is fully competent to extend the benefit of
exemptions to a particular category and deny the same to other,
keeping-in-mind the Larger Public Interest, the nexus and the
object sought to be achieved. In the present case, the reasoning
given by the State Government for grant of exemption to the
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (26 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
category of vehicles at S.No.7(a) (i) and (ii) is that in order to
promote the plying of buses with seating capacity in the Revenue
Divisional Limits, the exemptions have been granted and the same
has not been extended to the sleeper buses mentioned in the
category at S.No.7(a)(iii) so as to avoid competition with those
persons who are running their buses in the revenue divisional
limits. It is further stated that since the Sleeper Buses are plied
on long distance routes by providing comfortable night travel on
the regional permits, therefore, such benefit has not been
extended to them vis-a-vis categories mentioned at S.No.7(a) (i)
and (ii) in order to avoid unhealthy competition between category
at S.No.7(a) (i) and (ii) vis-a-vis category at S.No.7(a)(iii).
34. It is further noteworthy that a perusal of the prayers made in
the writ petition reveals that no challenge has been made with
respect to insertion of clause at S.No.7(a)(iii-a), which was also
inserted by the notification dated 24.02.2021, whereby exemption
of 50% has been extended only to motor vehicles falling in the
categories at S.No.7(a) (i) and (ii) and thus, there is no occasion
to deal with the same in detail. As challenge has been made to the
insertion of category at S.No.7(a)(iii) vide notification dated
24.02.2021, once it is so held that no separate class/type of
vehicle has been created by the State Government by the said
notification, the entire basis of the submissions made by the
petitioner does not survive. Therefore, in view of the discussions
made above, the second question posed by us hereinabove is
answered in the terms that the State was well within its domain to
create a separate category titled ‘Sleeper Bus’ falling in the same
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (27 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
class/type mentioned in the Central notification for the purpose of
levying tax without extending any exemption of tax in the present
case.
35. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are clearly distinguishable on the facts and
circumstances in the present case as the statute holding the field
for the application of the tax in the present case are clear and
unambiguous. Further the respondents have imposed the tax
absolutely within the ambit of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 and the imposition of tax by the
respondent is as per the registration of the vehicle in the
particular class/type as mentioned in the notification issued by the
Government of India under Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
36. It is further noted that the amendment made by the State
Government to the notification dated 10.07.2019 does not suffer
from any ambiguity as the same has been done as per the
provisions mentioned in the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation
Act, 1951. Further while taxing the Motor Vehicle by adding the
“Sleeper Bus” in the category is not violative of the parent statute
and, therefore, there is no ambiguity/illegality in the same. Thus
the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner render no help to the petitioner in the present case.
37. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
in other States the class of Motor Vehicles in the ‘Sleeper Bus’
category has been created for imposing the tax, but, in the State
of Rajasthan there is no such provision, thus, it can safely be
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (28 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
presumed that the State Government has exceeded its jurisdiction
in creating such category is noted to be rejected on the ground
that as per Rule 7.14A of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules,
1990, the category of ‘Sleeper Coach’ has been provided and as
per the respondents ‘Sleeper Bus’ and ‘Sleeper Coach’ are one and
the same. Since the ‘Sleeper Coach’ and ‘Sleeper Bus’ are the
categories of type/class of vehicle mentioned in the Motor Vehicles
Act, hence, not mentioning the ‘Sleeper Bus’ into a separate
category will not create any hindrance for the State to impose tax
on the category i.e. ‘Sleeper Bus’ at S.No.7(a)(iii) inserted vide
notification dated 24.02.2021.
38. Since the class or type of the vehicle has not been newly
created and it is only a category which has been created falling
under the type and class mentioned in the Central Statute,
therefore, the State is well within its right to create a separate
category in a particular class or type.
39. As far as challenge to the notice issued in Form MTR dated
24.03.2023 and demand notice issued in Form MTQ dated
21.06.2023 is concerned, it is not disputed that even after the
issuance of notification dated 24.02.2021, the State Government
continued to tax the petitioner under S.No.7(a)(ii) of the
notification dated 10.07.2019 and tax was deposited by the
petitioner in accordance with the same. It is not the case of the
respondents that any misrepresentation or concealment was made
by the petitioner while paying the tax as demanded. Rather, the
respondents admit that there was an error on their part in the
portal. Further, the impugned notices in form MTR and MTQ fail to
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (29 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
mention any of these facts and rather, even fail to specify the
basis for issuance of the same. Further also, the said notices fail
to adhere to the procedure as envisaged in Rule 8 of the
Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 as no certified copy
of the order computing the demand was annexed along with Form
MTQ. In absence of the said compliance, the impugned notices
issued in Form MTR dated 24.03.2024 and demand notice issued
in Form MTQ dated 21.06.2023 deserve to be quashed and are
accordingly quashed.
40. Consequently, the writ petition stands partly allowed in the
manner that the challenge made to the amendment vide
Notification dated 24.02.2021, whereby, a new category at Sr.
No.7(a)(iii) has been inserted in the existing Notification dated
10.07.2019 is upheld, however, the notices issued in the form of
M.T.R. dated 24.03.2023 and demand notice issued in Form M.T.Q.
dated 21.06.2023 are quashed and set aside. However, the
respondents will be at liberty to initiate proceedings, if so
permissible, strictly in accordance with law.
1. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9901/2023
2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9997/2023
3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10020/2023
4. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10068/2023
5. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10072/2023
6. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10500/2023
7. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10522/2023
8. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10526/2023
9. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10581/2023
10. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10781/2023
11. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11080/2023
12. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11536/2023
13. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11672/2025
14. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11685/2025
15. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11722/2025
16. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11759/2025
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36664-DB] (30 of 30) [CW-11535/2023]
17. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11761/2025
18. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11779/2025
19. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11800/2025
20. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11801/2025
21. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11803/2025
22. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11805/2025
23. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11809/2025
24. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11841/2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the
controversy involved in the present writ petitions are squarely
covered by a judgment of even date rendered by this Court in
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11535/2023 (Khuman Singh vs.
State of Rajasthan).
2. In view of the above, these writ petitions are also partly
allowed in light of judgment passed by this Court in Khuman
Singh‘s case (supra).
3. The stay applications and other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
4. Photocopy of this order be placed in each connected file.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
84-108-KartikDave/Taruna
/SunilS/Sanjay/-
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:54:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)