JANAK SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the sole petitioner has challenged the validity of Annexures 1 series, 2 and 3. The question that falls for determination in this case is a pure question of law involving the interpretation of the proviso to Sub -section (1) of Sec. 3 of the Bihar Taxation on Passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time. The subject matter of dispute in the present case is the assessment of tax under the aforesaid Act in respect to the levy on goods -transport. The periods in question are from 1.1.68 to 31.3.68, 1.4.68 to 30.6.68 and 1.4.69 to 30.6.69. These are the three quarters with which we are concerned. The petitioner is the owner of a truck. Under Notification No. Lgo 28/61 Leg 1519 dated 1.8.61 the Government of Bihar promulgated an ordinance under Clause (1) of Article 213 of the Constitution and under the provisions of Sec. 37 of the said Ordinance the payment of (Sic) was exempted on any mineral ores carried by any motor vehicle. Subsequently the Act, being Bihar Act 17 of 1961, was passed. The relevant statutory provision with which we are concerned is Sec. 3(1) which reads thus: - -

(2.) As already stated at the outset, the only point involved is as to whether the petitioner's case falls within the exemption clause of the proviso to Sub -section (1) of Sec. 3 of the said Act. In other words, whether the stone boulders which were transported in the petitioner's vehicle were covered by the expression 'mineral' used in the proviso. If the answer be in the affirmative, the petitioner is bound to succeed. If, on the contrary, it be held that stone boulders are not covered by the expression 'mineral' as used in the proviso, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that he had no case.

(3.) The Act does not define the term 'mineral'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as stone boulders were covered by the term 'minor minerals' as used in the different Mines Acts, they should also form the subject matter of exemption. I have no hesitation in overruling this contention. It is true that the Act does not lay down any definition of the term 'mineral'. But it is also true that the Mines Act, 1952 (Central Act No. 35 of 1952), which was an Act passed to amend and consolidate the law relating to the regulation of labour and safety in mines, defines 'minerals' in Sec. 2(jj) of that Act. Sec. 2(jj) reads thus: