Back
1993 Supreme(Ker) 23
Judges : JAGANNADHA RAO,SREEDHARAN
Venkata Rao - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No.449 of 1993
Decided On : 01/15/1993
Advocates Appeared :
Party in Person For Petitioner
The advance collection of motor vehicles tax for different periods, as allowed by the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, was upheld as reasonable and not in violation of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Taxation - Validity of Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 - S.4, S.6 - Advance collection of motor vehicles tax for different periods - Upheld by Supreme Court in similar case for 15 years - Collection of tax in advance held not unreasonable - No violation of Art.19(1)(d) or Art.21 of the Constitution - No merit in the petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, which allowed for advance collection of motor vehicles tax for different periods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the collection of tax in advance for different periods was upheld by the Supreme Court in a similar case for 15 years, and therefore, the collection of tax in advance for five years or two years cannot be said to be unreasonable. The court also held that the levy of tax did not amount to unreasonable restriction and did not violate Art.21 of the Constitution. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in it.
Issues: Validity of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993, and the advance collection of motor vehicles tax for different periods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision upholding the advance collection of motor vehicles tax for 15 years in a similar case, and found that the collection of tax in advance for five years or two years was not unreasonable. The court also held that the levy of tax did not amount to unreasonable restriction and did not violate Art.21 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in it.
Jagannadha Rao, CJ.
The Writ Petition has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxat ion (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 (Ordinance 2 of 1993) on various grounds. By virtue of the said ordinance, S.4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 has been amended, and a new fourth proviso is substituted, which reads as follows:
"Provided also that a registered owner or person having possession or control of a motor cycle (including motor scooter and cycle with attachment for propelling the- same by mechanical power) or a new three wheeler shall pay the tax payable in respect of that vehicle in advance for a period of 5 years in lumpsum upon a licence for such period, and in respect of a three wheeler other than the new three wheeler and in respect of a motorcar as. Specified in serial No.6A of the Schedule, such payment of tax shall be for a period of two years upon a licence for such period provided however that he may, at his Choice pay the tax in advance in respect of a motor cycle or new three wheeler for a period of 10 years or 15 years and in respect of a three wheeler other than a new three wheeler, for a period of 5 years or 10 years or 15 years, in lumpsum upon a licence for such period."
2. In the second proviso to S.4 for the words' motor vehicle' the words 'a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle (including motor, scooter and cycle with attachment for propelling the same by mechanical power) or a three wheeler including "cw three wheeler or a motor car as specified in item 6A of the Schedule' were substituted. A further amendment is made by describing the existing Explanation as Explanation 1 and in the Explanation as so numbered for the words 'the tax for an annual licence shall not exceed four times', the words the tax for an annual license shall not exceed four times, tax for two years, license shall not exceed eight times' were substituted. After the said Explanation 1, another Explanation was added as Explanation 2 stating that for the purposes of this sub-section', a new three wheeler' means a three wheeler specified in item 2 of the Schedule which is first registered in the State on or after the commencement of this Ordinance". Consequential amendments are made in S.6 of the Act.
3. It will therefore be seen that the advance collection of motor vehicles tax is levied for a period of five years in respect of certain vehicles and for a period of two years in respect of another type of vehicles. There is also a choice given to the tax payer to pay the tax for longer periods. It is this amendment that is assailed in the Writ Petition.
4. At the outset, it may be noticed that the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 was amended in 1987 and 1988 in Bombay by permitting collection of motor vehicles tax in advance for 15 years, which was described as one-time tax. The validity of the same has been upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mudhukar Balakrishna Badiya, AIR 1988 SC 2062. Their Lordships pointed out that the State Legislature has powers to collect tax under Entry 35 of List III of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution, that such tax is regulatory and compensatory tax, and the State is entitled to come forward with legislation to collect such tax in advance for 15 years. The contention of the Government that the cost of service to be rendered to the public was twice the total amount recovered from all types of vehicles was accepted. It is also pointed out that the lax payer should not take the trouble of going to the authorities for paying tax every year. There friendships also pointed out that the Act, as amended, was not violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. This decision therefore clearly concludes the matter against the petitioner in the present case where the tax is collected in advance only for five years or two years in respect of different types of vehicl
