AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS (P) LTD. ETC. versus GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 25-11-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS (P) LTD. ETC. 
v. 
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. ETC. 
November 25, 1971 
[S. M. Snoo, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND 
0. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
593 
Andhra Pradesh· Motor Ve/licks Taxation Act (5 of 1963 )-Ss. 3, 9 
and item 4 of Notification under s. 9-Levy of tax on chassis used on 
road--Chassis need not have body attached to it before it can be "used" 
'Within meaning qf s. 3-Exemption under item 4 limited to journey of 
: chassis for the express purpose of body being attac~d to it. 
Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (5 of 
1963) authorised levy of tax on motor vehicles "used or kept in use in a 
public place in the State". Item 4 in the table of the notification issued 
under s. 9 of the Act exempted from the tax "any chassis of motor vehicle 
when driven to any place in order that a body may be attached it." 
The Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd. in the State of Andhr.i Pra· 
desh, were dealers, among other things, in chassis received by it from 
manufacturers outside the State. The chassis were driven by transport 
contractors of the manufacturers themselves under temponuy certificate of 
registration under the Motor Vehicles Act and delivered tn the appellant 
in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Ashok Leyland Ltd. transported 
motor chassis by road from their factory in Madras tn dealers in various 
parts of India. These chassis were . driven through the State of Andhra 
Pradesh either for delivery there or in other States of India. The Auto-
moth'e Manufac;turers and the Ashok Leyland challenged the imposition of 
tax under the Act.. The High Court dismissed the petitions. In appeals 
to this Court it was contended that (i) se4ion 3 of the Act was not appli-
cable, because, there could be no =r or keeping for use of the chassis of 
a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle unless a body was attached to it; (ii) 
as the ch'!lssis v."ere invariably driven to their respecJive destination, in 
order that bodies may be attached to them, they came directly under the 
notification of exemption issued by the State Government; and (iii) 
the 
impugned levv operated as an impediment to free trade and commerce in 
violation of Art. 301 of the Constitution. 
Dismissing tile appeals. 
HELD : (i) It is not necessary for a chassis to have a body attached 
to it before it can be used within the meaning of the Act, inasmuch as, 
it can be used by the man who drives it. and such use of it on public roads 
would be enough to attract the levy. L596 DJ 
(ii) Item 4 in the table of the notification limits the exemption from 
the tax to the journey of the chassis for the express purpose of body being 
attached to it. The Automotive Manufacturers, being dealers; could and 
probably did deal with or dispose of the chassis as such. Further, it was 
not the case of the appellant that the chassis were coming from outside the 
State for the purpose of having bodies attached to them at the workshop 
of the appellant. 
So far· as Ashok Leyland was concerned the chassis v.ere being driven 
along the roads of Andhra Pradesh for disposal at the journey's end and 
it would be for the purchaser at the destination to have a body fixed to 
594 
SUPREME COURT Rl!PORTS 
[1972] 2 s.c.R. 
the chassis according to bis own need and on the specification given by 
him. Merely because bodies were going to be attached by the ultimate 
purchasers it could not be said that the running of the chassis on the roads 
of Andhra Pradesh would attract exemption under item ( 4) ol the notifi· 
cation. [597 C-E) 
[The contention that there was no previous sanction of the President 
in respect of the bill as envisaged by Art. 304 ( b) was not allowed to be 
raised inasmuch as it was not urged in writ petitions. Therefore, the 
' Court did not examine the merits of the contentions urged in this 
regard.) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeals Nos. 2180 
to 2182 ot 1968. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated 
October 6, 1967 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Peti-
tions Nos. 1456 of 1965, 376 and 2006 Qf 1966. 
M. C. Chagla, P. Ramachandra Rao and B. R. Agarwala, for 
the appellants (in all the appeals). 
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the respondeints (in all 
the appeals) . 
The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by 
Mitter, J.-These appeals are directed against the imposition 
of taxes under the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 
(V of 1963). The ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.