CANTONMENT BOARD, MHOW AND ANR. versus M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 10-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CANTONMENT BOARD, MHOW AND ANR. 
v. 
M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. 
APRIL 10, 1997 
[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947/Madhya Pradesh 
Mu11icipalities Act, 1961/Ca11to11111ents Act, 1924-Section 6(1 )!Section 
127( 1 )(iii )!Section 60( 1 }-Authmity to levy e11t1y tax on motor vehicles--Taxa-
tion Act 1947 providing for lei)' of tax on motor vehicles which is used or kept 
for use-Municipalities Act, 1961 providing for levy of tax on entry of motor 
vehicles-Held, there is no inconsistency or repugnancy between the two 
provisions as both operate i11 differe11t fields and thus Cantonment Boards 
can levy tax on motor vehicles ente1i11g the Municipality area under Canto11-
ments Act 1924. 
Rule of !11te1pretatio11 : General law a11d Special Law--Hannonious 
construction. 
Doctrine of implied repeal-Applicability of 
The Cantonment Boards in Saugor, Mhow and Jabalpur, by issuing 
notifications, imposed entry tax on motor vehicles in exercise of their 
power under Sec. 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. All those notifications 
were challenged before the High Court by filing Writ Petitions. The Court 
allowed the petitions holding that the Cantonment Boa1·ds have no power 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
to levy entry tax on motor vehicles because of the prohibitions contained 
F 
in Section 6 of the Taxation Act. Hence these appeals. 
On behalf of the Cantonment Boards, it was contended that 
Municipalities Act, 1961 being a later Act than the Taxation Act, 1947, the 
provisions of the later Act would prevail ifthere is any repugnancy between 
the two. Thus, imposition of entry tax having been provided for in Section G 
127 of the Municipalities Act, the same could be lawfully levied by the 
Cantonment Boards under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act. It wc1s 
further contended that though Municipalities Act did not expressly repeal 
the provisions of the Taxation Act, principle of implied repeal is applicable 
in the situation. It was urged that Taxation Act having not provided for H 
813 
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A any levy on the entry of motor vehicles as is provided under Section 127 
of the Municipalities Act, there is no repugnancy between the two 
provisions. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the maxim leges 
postetiures pliores contrmias abrogant is subject to the exception embodied 
B in the maxim : generalia specialibus 11011 derogant, which means that the 
later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws but subject to the exception that 
general law does not derogate from a special one. And, thus, the 
Municipalities Act cannot be said to have repealed the provisions of the 
Taxation Act which was a Special Act. It was also contended that the 
C expression "vehicles" in the Municipalities Act should be interpreted to 
mean all vehicles other th:in motor vehides for which 'I ~pcch1I provision 
has been made in the Taxation Act. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
D 
HELD : 1. Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 is a 
E 
F 
special provision dealing with levy of tax on motor vehicles nsed or kept 
for use. There is no provision in the Act for levy of any tax on entry of 
motor vehicles alone. [820-F-G] 
2. Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 authorises imposition 
of tax on vehicles, boats and animals entering the limits of the 
Municipality as provided in Section 127 of the said Act. [820-G] 
3. Since the Taxation Act does not provided for any imposition of tax 
on entry whereas Municipalities Act authorizes for such levy, there is no 
any inconsistency or repugnancy between the two provisions. [821-E-F] 
4. Since the Taxation Act special Law does not have any provision 
authorising imposition of entry tax and the Municipalities Act the general 
Law provides for such imposition, there would be no bar for the 
Municipality to impose entry tax on all vehicles. This is the only harmonious 
G constmction by which both provisions remain operative. [822-C-D] 
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Anr. Etc. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. 
Etc. Etc., [1990] 4 SCC 406, relied on. 
5. There is no repugnancy between Sections 3 and 6 of the Taxation 
H Act and Section 127(1) (iii) of the Municipalities Act and both provisions 
CANTONMENT BO. MHOW v. M.P.S.R. TPT. CORPN. [PAITANAIK,J.] 
815 
operate in two different fields and so the principle of implied repeal will A 
have no application in the case. (823-E-F] 
The Western India Theaters Ltd. v. The C

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