SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(Ker) 189

Judges : V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR,T.S.KRISHRIAMOORTHY IYER
PEERMADE TEA CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS - Respondent
Case No : W. A. No. 630, 807 of 1969 from O. P. No. 2081 of 66, 224 of 1967
Decided On : 11/10/1969
Advocates Appeared :
M. Pathrose Mathai; E. M. Jacob; For Appellant Government Pleader; For Respondent

Liability to tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963 is attracted irrespective of whether the vehicles are used on public or private roads.

Headnote:

Taxation - Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963 - Liability to tax on vehicles used exclusively on private roads

Fact of the Case:

The main question was whether liability to tax under S.3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963 is attracted when the vehicles are claimed to be used exclusively on private roads in the appellant's estates. The court concluded that liability to tax is attracted irrespective of whether the actual or potential user of the vehicles is on public or private roads.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the liability to tax is irrespective of whether the vehicles are used on public or private roads, as ruled by a previous decision. The contention that the levy of tax was discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution was dismissed due to lack of sufficient foundation and evidence of discrimination.

Issues: The issues involved the liability to tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963 for vehicles used exclusively on private roads and the contention of discrimination under Art.14 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi was that liability to tax is attracted under the Act so long as the vehicles are used or kept for use on roads, whether public or private, and that there was no case of discrimination based on the argument presented by the appellants' counsel.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Judgment :-

1. The main question agitated in these appeals is whether liability to tax under S.3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963 is attracted in these cases, where the vehicles in question are claimed to be used exclusively on the private roads in the appellant's estates. This question has been concluded against the appellants by the decision of this Court in W. A. No. 451 of 1969. On the strength of the said decision, the contention has to be found against the appellant.

2. The appellants sought to raise before us the contention that the levy of the tax in the circumstances and on the facts stated by them, is discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. No case of discrimination was argued before the learned single judge and no finding was given on the question. Before us, counsel for the appellants sought to make out with reference to the notification specifying the rates of tax, issued under S.3(1) of the Act, that the levy was discriminatory. We are afraid that no sufficient foundation has been laid for this argument, on facts; and on the materials placed before us, we are unable to see any case of discrimination. What was argued before us was that the petitioners who maintained their private roads in their estates and plied their vehicles on these roads are subject to taxation under the provisions of the Act, and the notification issued thereunder, in the same way and to the same extent as those who do not have to incur any expenses for the maintenance and repair of the roads on which they ply their vehicles, where the roads are maintained by the State or by a local authority. We are unable to see how on this basis any case of discrimination can be made out. As ruled by the Division Bench in W. A. No. 451 of 1969, liability to tax is quite irrespective of whether the actual or potential user of the vehicles is on public or private roads. Under the provisions of the Act, so long as the vehicles are used or kept for use, on roads, whether public or private, liability to tax is attracted, on all alike. That being so, on the basis of the argument advanced by Counsel for the appellants, we see no case of discrimination.

3. We dismiss these appeals, but make no order as to costs Dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top