2001MLD816 (PLP)

"Tax on Luxury Vehicles. ‑‑‑There shall be levied and collected a one time tax at the following rates on luxury vehicle manufactured abroad and registered in the Punjab after 30th June, 1994 or registered after the said date outside the Punjab and plying in the Punjab: (a) Mercedes Bens. BMW, Jagnar Rolls Royee cars or cars of such other makes or may be notified by the Government: (i) with engine capacity upto 2000 c.c. Rs.2,00,000.00 (ii) with engine capacity exceeding 2000 c.c Rs.4,00,000.00 (b) Land Cruiser, Patro, Pajero, Range. Rs.3,00,000.00 Rover or any other luxury jeep and double cabine pick‑up with engine capacity of 2500 cc or above or such other makes as may be notified by the Government. (2) The tax shall be payable by the owner of the vehicle. (3) Any person who fails to pay the tax within the prescribed time limit shall in addition to the amount of the tax be liable to pay a penalty not exceeding the amount of the tax due. (4) Any amount of tax or penalty imposed which remains unpaid shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. (5) The Government may make rules for giving effect to the provisions of this section." According to him, the said tax is leviable on those vehicles which are registered in the Punjab or outside Punjab provided the said vehicles are "plying" in Punjab, that word "plying" denotes only that vehicle which is being used for hire or reward, that vehicle in question is neither being used for hire or reward, so it does not fall within the ambit of section 7 of Punjab Finance Act, 1997 and is not liable to said tax. He further argued that petitioner is not plying the vehicle but is driving as such even on this score he is not liable to tax, that the word "plying" is only applicable to vehicles which are being used as public, service vehicle as defined in sub‑clause (31) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, that the vehicle in question does not even fall within the category of "public service vehicle" as such is not liable to said tax. He thus, submitted that the impugned orders passed by Respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively are nor sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. Conversely, impugned orders have been supported by the learned A.A.‑G.

7. Admittedly, tax on luxury vehicles has been‑ imposed under section 7 of Punjab Finance Act, 1997 which has been reproduced above. The said tax has been levied to all vehicles whether registered in the Punjab or outside the Punjab. A list of few vehicles which fall in that category has also been given therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to take refuge under the word "plying" which has been used in section 7 (ibid). His stand is that as word "plying" has been used in section 7, so it will be applicable to only those vehicles which are being used for hire or reward and it will not. be applicable to ail other vehicles. This interpretation of section 7 (ibid) of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appeal to reason, as said tax has been imposed upon all vehicles falling in that category irrespective of the fact that said vehicles are being plied for hire and reward or not. The distinction which the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to create between words "plying" and "driving" does not fit in the present scheme of events. No such intention of the Legislature can be gathered from a bare reading of section 7 (ibid). The mere fact that detail of vehicles has been given in subsection (a) of. section 7 of Punjab Finance Act, 1997 means that all such vehicles which are being used/plied by its owners are liable to said tax whether such vehicles have been registered in the Punjab or outside the Punjab. The vehicle in question has rightly been assessed to tax by Respondents Nos. l and 2 vide impugned orders.

8. For reasons given above, the writ petition is adjudged to be devoid of any force. Consequently, it fails and is hereby dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./R.43/L Petition dismissed.