JUDGMENT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.

The appellant, who lost his writ petition before the learned Single Judge, is before the Division Bench seeking tax exemption for his automatic transmission vehicle, since he is a physically disabled person, entitled for tax exemption.

2.In the year 1976, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification in exercise of its power under Section 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, exempting payment of tax leviable under the said Act, to all motor vehicles specially designed or adapted for the use of physically handicapped persons, provided that adapted vehicles are used by the physically handicapped persons only. The said notification in G.O.Ms.No. 3352, dated 29.12.1976, came into effect from 1st January, 1977. Availing the said concession in the year 2006, the appellant earlier had purchased a Hyundai Santro car with automatic transmission with required alteration. Due to the advancement of technology in motor vehicle as well as considering the age of the vehicle he possessed, the appellant had thought fit to dispose the old vehicle and purchased a new Hyundai-i10 car in exchange the automatic transmission (hand control). When he sought for tax exemption, as per G.O.Ms.No.3352, Home (Transport-T) Department, dated 29.12.1976, the same was declined by the Road Transport Authorities. Hence, he was compelled to file a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.5450 of 2020 with the following prayer, “to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 vide his proceedings in Lr.R.No.1223/C1/2020 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the fourth respondent to register the petitioner's new Hyundai-i10 car with auto clutch, a modern version of automatic Transmission without insisting the petitioner to produce retro fitment certificate within a time frame as fixed by this Court and grant life tax exemption as to the CARs for the disabled persons.”

3.The learned Single Judge, after considering the expression like “Specially designed”, “adapted” (specially designed motor vehicle) used in G.O.Ms.No.3352, has dismissed the writ petition making the following observations:

“16.Now the only question that has to be answered by me is whether the vehicle purchased by the petitioner can be categorized as motor vehicle specially designed or adapted for the use of physically handicapped persons. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an earnest attempt to persuade me to accede to his view point, I regret my inability. Hyundai i10 can be used by any person. It cannot be called as vehicle specially designed or adapted for the use of physically handicapped person. In other words, Hyundai i10 is a vehicle which a normal person or a differently abled person like the petitioner can drive. It has not been specially adapted or designed for the use of differently abled persons. The technological design of the vehicle is such that the physical disability of the petitioner will not come in the way of driving the vehicle. Use of the vehicle by the petitioner by itself will not make it an invalid carriage. On the other hand, the vehicle must be specially designed or adapted to address the needs of the physically challenged person. Such is not the case here. It is a car designed for all. Incidentally, it suits the petitioner also. The petitioner is an incidental beneficiary. He is not a targeted beneficiary. Therefore, the other requirement set out in G.O.Ms.No.3352, Home (Transport-T) Department, dated

29.12.1976 is not satisfied.

17.Of-course, issue regarding the mode of interpretation did arise in this case. A beneficial provision must be expansively and liberally construed so that the intended beneficiaries reap the fruits. But it is equally well settled that a provision exempting payment of tax must be strictly interpreted and if there is any ambiguity, the benefit must go