Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

G.S.R. 679 (E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 32 read with Section 295 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes, hereby, makes the following rules to further amend the Income-tax Rules, 1962, namely:

1. Short title and commencement- (1) These rules may be called the Income-tax (9th Amendment) Rules, 2019.

(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 23rd day of August, 2019.

2. In the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in the NEW APPENDIX I, in the Table, in PART A relating to TANGIBLE ASSETS, in item III relating to MACHINERY AND PLANT, –

(a) for sub-item (2) and entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely:-

Block of Assets

Depreciation allowed as per percentage of written down value

1

2

“(2) (i) Motor cars, other than those used in a business of running them on hire, acquired or put to use on or after the 1st day of April, 1990 except those covered under entry (ii);

(ii) Motor cars, other than those used in a business of running them on hire, acquired on or after the 23rd day of August, 2019 but before the 1st day of April, 2020 and is put to use before the 1st day of April, 2020.

15

 

 

 

 

30”;

 

Block of Assets

Depreciation allowed as per percentage of written down value

1

2

“(ii) (a) Motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in a business of running them on hire other than those covered under entry (b).

(b) Motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in a business of running them on hire, acquired on or after the 23rd day of August, 2019 but before the 1st day of April, 2020 and is put to use before the 1st day of April, 2020.

30

 

 

 

 

45”;


Ministry of Finance

[Notification dt. 20-09-2019]

Amendments to existing lawsLegislation Updates

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), the Central Government vide G.S.R. 871(E) notified the Central Motor Vehicles (12th Amendment) Rules, 2018 on 13-09-2018, to amend the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, namely: —

In the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in Rule 115, in sub-rule (15),-

(i) in clause (a), after the sixth proviso and before the Explanation, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

“Provided also that nothing in this clause shall apply to the special purpose vehicles (armoured and other specialised vehicles) used for operational purposes for maintenance of law and order and internal security, for a period up to 31st December, 2019;”;

(ii) in clause (aa), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

“Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the special purpose vehicles (armoured and other specialised vehicles) used for operational purposes for maintenance of law and order and internal security, for a period up to 31-12-2019;”.

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the PIL filed by the Chairman and Head of Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, seeking enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims, after witnessing the acute loss of life and limbs caused by road accidents daily, the bench of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ enumerated a number of directions to ensure road safety. Some of the most important directions include:

  • Framing of Road Safety Policy by State Governments and constitution of State Road Safety Council.
  • Establishment of Lead Agency acting as act as the Secretariat of the State Road Safety Council and coordinate all activities such as licensing issues including issues of driving licences, registration of vehicles, road safety and features of vehicles, along with other allied matters including emission norms and other activities.
  • Establishment of Road Safety Fund from the fines collected for traffic violations and the Fund will be utilized for meeting expenses relating to road safety.
  • State Governments and Union Territories should urgently prepare a Road Safety Action Plan by 31st March, 2018 and put it into action after giving it due publicity.
  • District Road Safety Committee headed by the Collector of the District should be constituted and should include amongst others the Superintendent of Police, Health Officers, Engineers of the Public Works Department, representatives of the National Highways Authority of India, the Road Transport Officer of the District and members of civil society from the District.
  • State Governments and Union Territories should establish Permanent Road Safety Cells by 31st January, 2018.
  • Improvement in the design of roads to make them safe.
  • GPS or location tracking devices must be fitted in all public service vehicles.
  • Road Safety Audits as an audit of road safety is essential to reduce the possibility of road accidents through corrective measures.
  • Road Safety Equipments including acquisition of cameras and surveillance equipments in detecting traffic and identifying violators, setting up of special patrol forces along the National Highways and State Highways.
  • Road Safety Education and Counseling should be made a part of the school curriculum.
  • Emergency Medical Care should be established and at least one Trauma Care Centre should be set up in every district with necessary facilities and an ambulance.
  • Due publicity must be given to the Universal Accident Helpline Number ‘108’ so that an ambulance can be activated at the earliest whenever necessary.
  • Directions relating to Drivers’ training, lane driving, ABS, Air Bags and Headlights, Speed Governors, Crash Test, etc. were also issued.

The petitioner had suggested that practical measures need to be taken in a time-bound and expeditious manner to give effect to legislations, reports and recommendations for ensuring that the loss of lives due to road accidents is minimized. He had brought to the Court’s notice that 90% of the problem of deaths due to road accidents is the result of a lack of strict enforcement of safety rules on roads and strict punishment for those who do not obey rules. He had relied upon data published in December 2011 by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in its publication captioned “Road Accidents in India 2010” to indicate that the number of road accidents is increasing every year and that unfortunately more than half the victims are in the economically active age group of 25-65 years. [Dr. S. Rajaseekaran (II) v. Union of India,  2017 SCC OnLine SC 1392, decided on 30.11.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Hearing the reference made to resolve the conflict in the decisions reported in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. B.A.Jayaram, 1984 (Supp) SCC 244 ( Jayaram case), Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. M.A.Egappan – 1987 (2) SCC 47 (Egappan Case), the 5-judge bench of T.S. Thakur, CJ, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, S.A. Bobde, R. Banumathi and U.U. Lalit, JJ held that the decision in Jayaram Case is no longer a good law and the decision reported in Egappan Case stands approved which is in tune with the Constitution Bench decision reported in Adarsh Travels Bus Service and another Vs. State of U.P.  (1985) 4 SCC 557 (Adarsh Travels Case).

The reference that was made in R. Raghuram Vs. P. Jayarama Naidu, 1990 (Supp) SCC 361, called upon the Court to interpret the Chapter IV vis-à-vis Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.  Stating that Chapter IV-A supersedes any inconsistent provisions in Chapter IV, it was held that the policy of the Legislature is clear from Section 68C that the State Transport Undertaking may initiate a scheme for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated road transport service to be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion thereof. It may do so if it is necessary in the public interest. It was further held that Section 57(8) is controlled by Section 68FF falling under Chapter IV-A, by virtue of the superseding effect of Section 68B also falling under Chapter IVA of the Act. The Court, hence, held that the ruling of the Courtin Jayaram Case where it was held that application for variation dealt with under Section 57(8) of the Act cannot be construed as an application for a new permit, was not a good law as Grant of variation under Section 57(8) will be as good as grant of a new permit.

Referring to the Adarsh Travels Case, the Court noted that the provisions in Chapter IV-A are devised to override the provisions of Chapter IV and it is expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter IV-A are clear and complete regarding the manner and effect of the “takeover” of the operation of a road transport service by the State Transport Undertaking in relation to any Area or Route or portion thereof. A necessary consequence of those provisions is that no private operator can operate his vehicle on any part or portion of a notified area or notified route unless authorized so to do by the term of the scheme itself. He may not operate on any part or portion of the notified Route or Area on the mere ground that the permit as originally granted to him covered the notified Route or Area. [G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy v. State Transport Authority, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 714, decided on 19.07.2016]