- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard Shri Arun Saunders learned Counsel for the petitioners, and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioners are stage carriage operators, plying their stage carriages on the route in question. By Section 5 (a) of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2001 (U. P. Act No. 25 of 2001), the Fourth Schedule of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 has been amended. We have carefully perused the impugned amendment and find no unconstitutionality in the same. It may be stated that to challenge the constitutional validity of a provision of an Act only one argument is available to the petitioners, namely that the provision in the said Act is ultra vires some provision of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned amendment is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution since it is arbitrary and unreasonable. He further submitted that under Section 67 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the State Government can fix the fares which shall be inclusive of the tax payable by the passengers. Learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that by the impugned amendment the additional tax has been enhanced while there is no corresponding increase of the fare under Section 67 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(3.) IN our opinion there is no substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. An amendment cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution merely because it imposes some additional burden, which cannot be passed on the passengers. It often happens that the burden of a tax cannot be passed on to the customers but this does not necessarily make it violative of the Constitution. For example, Sales Tax or Excise laws are often amended retrospectively but this does not necessarily make the amendment unconstitutional merely because the burden cannot be passed on to the customer vide M/s. Kanthi Enterprises and others v. State of Karnataka and others, JT 2002 (7) SC 19; M/s. Chhotakhai v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1006; Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1667; Jawaharmal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 764, etc. We do not find the impugned amendment to be arbitrary or unreasonable. There is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;