ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, KOTTAYAM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY versus THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 27-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
971
   [2022] 17 S.C.R. 971
971
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, KOTTAYAM
UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4502 of 2009)
JULY 27, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 – ss.4(7) , 4(8), 15
– Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Kerala
Motor Transport Worker’s Welfare Fund Act, 1985 – s.8A – Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 – Challenge to constitutional validity of ss.4(7) ,
4(8), 15, 1976 Act and s.8A , 1985 Act – Held: The 1988 Act does
not cover the field of the manner of levy of vehicle tax and collection
thereof – The same is covered by the State legislations – Considering
the scheme of the State legislations, it is incomprehensible to
countenance the argument that the two provisions (of 1988 Act on
the one hand and of 1976 Act and 1985 Act on the other) are
inconsistent in any manner whatsoever – The State enactments are
complementary and can be given effect to without any disobedience
to the Central legislations – Neither the provisions of the 1985 Act
or the 1976 Act have the effect of interdicting the permit issued
under the 1988 Act – The real intent and purpose behind these
provisions is to restate the mandate stated in the 1988 Act that the
vehicle cannot be used on road without a valid permit and payment
of vehicle tax up to date – The provisions of the 1976 Act and the
1985 Act, enacted by the State Legislature are only intended to ensure
that the vehicle owner/permit-holder does not remain in arrears of
either the welfare fund contribution or the vehicle tax both payable
under the State enactments – These provisions are in no way in
conflict with the law made by the Parliament (1988 Act) – The State
enactments do not create any new liability or obligation in relation
to the permit issued under the 1988 Act (Central legislation), but it
provides for dispensation to ensure timely collection of the welfare
fund contribution as well as vehicle tax payable by the same vehicle
owner/permit-holder – The stand taken by the writ petitioners
regarding the validity of the amended provisions being repugnant
to the law made by the Parliament is negatived.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Constitution of India – Tests of repugnancy – Discussed.
Kerala Motor Transport Worker’s Welfare Fund Act, 1985 –
Objective of – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
Held : 1.1 This Act had repealed the erstwhile Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939. The Parliament has obviously enacted the
1988 Act in reference to Entry 35 in List III – Concurrent List
which concerns the mechanically propelled vehicles including the
principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied.
Notably, the 1988 Act provides for procedure of Regional
Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage
permit as predicated in Section 71 of the 1988 Act. The Authority
while considering an application for grant of a stage carriage
permit is obliged to have regard to the objects of the 1988 Act
including about the satisfactory performance of the applicant as a
stage carriage operator and payment of tax [Section 71(3)(d)(ii)].
The other relevant provision for considering the subject-matter
of this appeal is Section 81 dealing with duration and renewal of
permits. It postulates that the permit issued by the Authority
under the Act shall be effective from the date of issuance or
renewal thereof for a period of five years. The proviso to sub-
section (1) envisages that where the permit is countersigned
under sub-section (1) of Section 88, such countersignature shall
remain effective without renewal for such period so as to
synchronise with the validity of the primary permit. This Court is
not concerned with the effect of the proviso in the present case.
The relevant sub-section dealing with the power of the Authority
to reject an application for the renewal of a permit is sub-section
(4) of Section 81. It provides for the grounds on which the renewal
of a permit can be rejected. The same includes plying any vehicle
without payment of tax due on such vehicle; and on any
unauthorised route. Besides these provisions, there is nothing
in the 1988 Act to deal with the manner of levy of vehicle tax or
the collection thereof. In other words, the law made by the
Parliament does not occupy the field of manner of levy of vehicle
tax and collection thereof. If so, it is not possible to hold

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.