Interpretation of the definition of 'motor vehicle' and application of taxation laws to determine liability of steam rollers under the local Act.

Gentle, J.

1. The plaintiff, the Corporation of Madras, was the owner of 21 steam rollers which were used in connection with the discharge of the duty of making, repairing and maintaining roads within the city. Acting through the Commissioner of Police, the defendant (hereinafter called "the local Government") required the plaintiff to pay the sum of Rs. 16,170 as the amount of tax alleged to be leviable upon these steam rollers under the provisions of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931 (hereinafter called "the local Act") for the period from 1st April, 1931 to 30th April, 1934. The plaintiff contended that these rollers were not motor vehicles within the meaning of the local Act and that no tax was leviable upon them. Correspondence took place between the plaintiff and the local Government eventuating in 1936 by a letter addressed to the Corporation informing it that if payment of the sum of Rs. 16,170 was not made, the local Government would adjust this sum by an equivalent deduction from the grant payable to the plaintiff during that year. Thereupon, on 30th March, 1936, the plaintiff paid the above sum under protest, see Exs. P-1 and P-2. On 14th August, 1936, by Ex. P-4, the plaintiff claimed repayment of the above amount and gave notice of the intention to file the present suit. This demand not having met with compliance, this suit was filed on 14th December, 1936.

2. The plaintiff claims-

a declaration that no tax is leviable upon the steam rollers under the provisions of the local Act;

(b) a decree for the sum of Rs. 16,170; and

(c) interest upon that sum at the rate of six per cent, per annum from 30th March, 1936, the date when payment was made to the local Government.

3. The defendant in his written statement alleges that the tax is leviable on the steam rollers under the provisions of the local Act and denies that in any event the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest.

4. No tax upon the plaintiffs steam rollers has been demanded or paid for the period following 30th April, 1934, as under Section 11(1)(ii) of the local Act, the local Government may by notification make an exemption in regard to the tax payable in respect of any motor vehicle or class of motor vehicles and pursuant to this provision, road rollers belonging to the Government or local bodies were exempted from payment of tax after the above date. No oral evidence was given and the facts to which 1 refer are agreed between the parties.

5. If a steam roller is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the local Act, the tax was properly leviable, and the plaintiff cannot succeed. On the other hand, if "motor vehicle" under the Act does not include a steam roller, the plaintiff was wrongly chargeable with the tax and is entitled to a decree for the amount paid. There is no dispute in regard to the amount of the claim. It is conceded by the plaintiff that if the tax was payable under the Act, the sum of Rs. 16,170 is the correct amount and the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the defendant conceded that if steam rollers were not taxable, then the above sum is a debt due and recoverable by the plaintiff from the defendant.

6. The relevant provisions of the local Act are:

Section 2(iii). Motor vehicle has the same meaning as in the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1914.

Section 4(1). The local Government may, ... direct that a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle kept or used in the presidency of Madras.

7. Section 2 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1914 (hereinafter called "the Imperial Act") provides that a

Motor vehicle includes a vehicle, carriage or other means of conveyance propelled, or which may be propelled, on a road by electrical or mechanical power either entirely or partially.

8. Mr. Vijayaraghavan, in the course of his able agrument on behalf of the plaintiff, contended that a steam roller is not included in the definition of "motor vehicle" in the Imperial Act and consequently is excluded from the local Act, and further that even if