Judgment

SUBBA RAO, CJI. : This appeal by certificate is directed against the order of the High Court of Assam declaring that the Assam Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Acts of 1963 and 1966 were repugnant to the Assam Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1936 (Assam Act 9 of 1936), hereinafter called the Principal Act, and, therefore, void, as they were made in contravention of the provisions of Art. 254 (2) of the Constitution.

2. The facts are in a small compass and they are as follows: The Principal Act came into force on March 1, l937. The assent of the Governor-General in Council was given under S. 35 of the Government of India Act, 1935. This Act imposes tax on motor vehicles in the Province of Assam. In 1955 the Principal Act was amended by Assam Act IV of 1956 and it had received the assent of the President. Subsequently the Principal; Act was amended by Act 15 of 1963 but the Bill was introduced in the Assam State Assembly with the previous sanction of the President and it came into force on April 1, 1963. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, out of which the present appeal has arisen, the Principal Act was again amended in the year 1966 and it came into force on April 1, 1966. The tax on the stage carriage motor vehicles was gradually raised under each amendment and under the last of the amendments a sum of Rs. 56 was imposed per seat. Under the last amendment Act the petitioner-respondent had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,680 as tax for the stage carriage she was plying.

3. The respondent filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for declaring the mending Acts viod and for other reliefs.

4. The petition was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the learned Judges delivered two separate but concurrent judgments. They held that the Amending Acts of 1963 and 1966 were void and gave the petitioner-respondent the reliefs asked for. Hence the present appeal.

5. The main question in the appeal is whether the said Amending Acts increasing the rate of tax are void for constitutional incompetence. The High Court in effect held that the provisions of the said Amending Acts were inconsistent with those of the existing law, namely, the Principal Act and, therefore, as they had not received the assent of the President, were void under Art 254 of the Constitution. This conclusion was arrived at on the ground that the Amending Acts were made in respect of the matter contained in Entry 35 of the Concurrent List.

6. To appreciate the contentions it will be convenient to read at the outset the relevant Articles of the Constitution .

Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution:

Taxes on vehicles , whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads including tramcars subject to the provisions of Entry 35 of List III.

Entry 35 List III

Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied.

Art. 254- (1) If any provision of law made by the legislature of a State is repugnant.....to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then subject to the provision of Cl. (2) ... the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.

(2.) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State.

Art. 366 (10). Existing law means any law, ordinance or bye-law, rule or regulation passed or made before the commencement of the Constitution by any Legislature, authority or person having power to make such a law, ordinance or bye-law, rule or regulation.

7. The a