The State and other authorities have preferred these writ appeals assailing order dated 10/03/2016, passed in Writ Petition No.28063/2015 and connected matters. By that order, the learned Single Judge of this court has held that Explanation 2 to Section 3 of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”, for the sake of brevity) inserted by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Amendment Act, 2014”) is unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution. Consequently, the demand raised on the respondent-petitioners were quashed. In order to arrive at the said conclusion, learned Single Judge held that, the Amendment Act, 2014 had not removed the basis of the decision in Mahesh C. Gandhi vs. D.C. for Transport, Belgaum [2005 (5) KLJ 362] (Mahesh Gandhi). It is further held that payment of lifetime tax continues to be dependent on registration or reregistration under Sections 40 and 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “MV Act, 1988”, for short), as the case may be.

Background Facts:

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent petitioners had challenged the constitutionality of Explanation 2 to Section 3 of the Amendment Act, 2014 and had sought other incidental reliefs. The respondents in all these appeals, are permanent residents of Pune, Maharashtra State; Trissur, Kerala State and in Kerala State respectively. The common grievance of the respondents was that their vehicles were intercepted in the State of Karnataka, the documents of the vehicles were seized and a demand was made to pay lifetime tax to the Karnataka State exchequer under the provisions of the Act having regard to Explanation 2 to Section 3 of the Act. Contending that they had registered their vehicles under Section 40 of MV Act, 1988 in their respective States and that the said registration was effective and valid throughout India and as they had paid lifetime tax, on registration of their vehicles in their respective States, they were not bound to pay lifetime tax in the State of Karnataka. They challenged the demand made and also the vires of Explanation 2 to Section 3 of the Act.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, the State defended the levy under Section 3(1) of Act read with Explanation 2 thereof. The State contended that it had legislative competence to pass the impugned amendment and that the amendment was made having regard to the dictum of this Court in the case of Mahesh Gandhi. That on account of the amendment made to the said Act by insertion of Explanation 2 to Section 3(1) of the said Act, the ratio of the said judgment as well as its basis were removed and hence, the amendment was valid and consequently the demand was in accordance with the amended provision. As already noted, the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein in the aforesaid terms, held that the demand for payment of lifetime tax on the vehicles of the respondents was illegal. Hence, the State has preferred these writ appeals.

4. We have heard Sri A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Submissions:

Shivayogiswamy, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the appellant-State and Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate for Sri Karan Jospeh, as well as other advocates for respondents and perused the material on record.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General, Sri Ponnanna, while drawing our attention to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act as well as Sections 46 and 47 of MV Act, 1988 contended that the payment of lifetime tax in respect of a motor vehicle has no nexus to the registration of the vehicle. He also contended that, MV Act, 1988 does not deal with taxation of motor vehicles and that the State is empowered to levy tax on motor vehicles plying in the