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

1980 Supreme(SC) 287

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
Travancore Tea Co. Ltd. etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Kerala and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 437-438 and 1460 of 1970
Decided on 3-6-1980.
Advocates appeared
M/s. A.B. Divan, M. Vellapally and T.M. Ansari, Advocates (in C.A.No. 437 of 1970); M/s. M. Vellapally and T.M. Ansari (in C.A. No. 438 of 1970) and Mr. Kapil Sibal, M. Vellapally and T.M. Ansari Advocates (in C.A. No. 1460 of 1970). for Appellants, K.T. Harindra Nath, Sr. Advocate (C.A. No. 437 of 1970) (Mr. K. M. K. Nair, Advocate with him), for Respondents in all the Appeals.

Advocates:
A.B.DIWAN, K.M.NAYAR, K.T.Harindernath, KAPIL SIBAL, M.VELLAPALLY, T.M.ANSARI, T.U.ANARI

Headnote:

Kerala Motor Vechicles Taxation Act - Section 3 - Motor Vehicles Act 1939 - Section 2 (18) - Vechicles Were Purchased - Purpose Of Plantation Are Maintaining Roads Fit For Vehicular Traffic - Stay Of Prosecution And Collection Of Tax - Appellant Took Matter Up On Letters Patent Appeal - Main contention raised on behalf of appellant was that learned single Judge was in error in holding that all motor vehicles used or kept for use in State quite irrespective of any question as to whether or not they are used on public roads is erroneous in so far as it related to motor vehicles used or kept exclusively for use in private estate and not used or kept for use on public roads of State - Letters patent Bench affirmed decision of single Judge and rejected appeal - Constitutional validity of Act was not questioned before Bench - Holding that legislative Entry of State list only required that vehicles should be suitable for use on roads and charging section only provided that vehicle should be used or kept for use in State required conditions were satisfied and there would be no justification for reading into statute words that are not there and restricting levy only on vehicles using public roads - While not contesting correctness of observation of Bench of High Court that levy cannot be restricted to vehicles using public roads it was submitted that words of Act "shall be levied on all motor vehicles used or kept for use in State" should be confined to vehicles used or kept for use on public roads of State – Held, Court would refer to a contention raised by learned counsel based on decision of this Court - Plea of learned counsel is that words "motor vehicle" should be understood as defined by Sec. 2 (18) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and exclude from taxation motor vehicles "used solely upon premises of owner - "As vehicles with which we are concerned were claimed to have been kept for use solely in premises of company it was contended that vehicles are not exigible to tax - This Court in decision cited was dealing with Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 - Section 2 (c) of Orissa Taxation Act adopted definition of Motor Vehicle Act as found in Motor Vehicles Act 1914 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1914 was repealed and replaced by Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - definition of motor vehicle in Sec. 2 (18) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 excluded motor vehicles used solely upon premises of owner - Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was amended and Orissa Amendment Act, 1943 re-enacted provisions of Taxation Act - "Motor Vehicles" was defined under Sec. 2 (18) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 excluding vehicles used solely upon premises of owner - Appeals Allowed.

JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J.:— These three appeals are by special leave granted by this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeals Nos. 451. 630 and 807 of 1969 respectively. The questions that arise for consideration in all the three appeals are the same and can be dealt with together. As the facts so far as they are necessary for decision in these appeals are similar, we will confine the judgment to the facts in Civil Appeal No 437 of 1970.

2. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 437 of 1970 is Travancore Tea Co. Ltd, Vandiperiyar in Kerala State. The 1st respondent is the State of Kerala and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are the authorities functioning under the Kerala Motor Vechicles Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963) which will hereafter be referred to as the Act, was brought into force on 1-7-63. The Act provides that "a tax at the rates fixed by the Government by notification in the Gazette not exceeding the maximum rates specified in the First Schedule shall be levied on all Motor Vechicles used or kept for use in the State." The appellant company owned 17 motor vehicles, tractors, trailers and lorries all of which are registered in the companys name under the Motor Vechicles Act. The Company alleged that the Vechicles were purchased by it solely and exclusively for use in the estates solely and intended to be used only for agricultural purpose and were not used nor kept for use in the State as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. The company is a tea plantation having eight estates which lie contiguous to each other and have an extent of 9422.44 acres in the aggregate. The company for the purpose of plantation are maintaining roads fit for vehicular traffic in the eight estates covering a length of 131 miles in the aggregate. On 23rd September, 1964 a Bedford Lorry owned by the company and bearing registration No. KLK-1540 was ceased by the police and taken into custody under Section 13 of the Act. According to the appellant the seizure was effected in Tengamullay Estate which is one of the eight estates owned by the company. The company wrote to the Department on 28-12-1964 stating that the vehicle was being used for agricultural purpose on private roads in the Estates and the company is not liable to pay tax and asked for the release of the vehicle, On the company paying a sum of Rupees 3,150/- as tax under protest for the period between 1-7-63 to 31-12-64, the vehicle was released. The department proceeded to prosecute the appellant in the Peermade Ist Class Magistrates Court and the case is still pending. The appellant company filed O. P. No. 199/65 before the High Court of Kerala claiming that they were not liable to pay any tax on the motor vehicles. The High Court by its judgment dated 3rd March, 1966 directed the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam - 2nd respondend herein, to examine the question raised in the writ petition and to pass final orders. It also directed that if the petitioner was aggrieved with the order he was at liberty to approach the High Court. In the meanwhile it directed stay of prosecution and collection of tax. The matter was taken up for consideration by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent rejected the pleas of the appellant and by his order dated 12-4-68 held that the 13 vehicles mentioned in the Original petition were liable to pay tax under the Act. The appellant filed a petition before the High Court for appropriate relief The High Court disposed of the petition O. P. No.2173/63 along with O. P. No.2081/68 filed by peermade Tea Co. who are the appellants in C. A. 438/70 in this Court by a common order dated 19th December, 1969. The learned Judge held that the language in Section 3 of that Act showed that there is departure from the legislative policy of restricting the tax liability only to vehicles using public roads. It held that the tax is imposed by Section 3 on all the motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State irrespective of any question as to whe












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