M. NARASIMHAIAH versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT, BANGALORE DIVISION, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE & ANR.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 24-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. .i.. 
A 
M. NARASIMHAIAH 
v. 
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT, 
BANGALORE DIVISION, INFANTRY ROAD, 
BANGALORE & ANR. 
B 
NOVEMBER 24, 1987 
r 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND KN. SINGH, JJ.] 
Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957-Levy of addi-
_)I 
tional tax under section 8 thereof on stage carriage. 
c 
r 
The appellant was a registered owner of a motor vehicle run by 
.. '"'I 
him as a stage carriage under a permit issued nuder the Motor Vehi-
des Act, 1939. He was liable to pay tax iu respect of the vehicle under 
section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, which 
provides that a tax at the rates specified in Part A of the Schedule to 
D the Act shall be levied on all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads, 
and item 4 in Part A of the Schedule to the Act, as it stood in 1985, 
r 
relates to the levy of tax on the motor vehicles used as stage carriages. 
On some occasions, it was found that the appellants stage car-
riage was carrying passengers in exeess of the number of passengers -, 
E 
allowed to be carried under the permit issued to him under the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1939. The taxation authority under the Karnataka Act 
above-said issued to him a demand for the payment of additional tax 
\ 
under section 8 of the said Act. The appellant filed a writ petition, 
challenging the demand for the additional tax. The High Court dismis- '. 
sed the petition, following its earlier decision in Noorullha Khan v. 
F 
State of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 8302 of 1980, etc. decided on 
Y' 
26.6.85.)' The appellant appealed to this Court by special leave against 
the order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
~ 
G 
HELD: The taxation authority levied the additional tax under 
section 8 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, on the 
-( 
ground that the appellant had proposed to use the vehicle in such a 
manner as to cause the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which 
a higher rate of tax was payable, in accordance with the decision of the 
High Court in the Noorullha Khan's case. The payment of the addi-
H tional tax arises as per section 8 on two occasions--(i) when the Motor 
10 
M. NARASIMHAIAH v. DY. COMMR. TPT. 
11 
Vehicle is altered in such a manner as to cause the vehicle to become a 
A 
! 
vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax is payable, or (ii) when 
any motor vehicle is proposed to be used in such a manner as to cause 
the vehicle to become a vehicle in respect of which a higher rate of tax 
is payable. The vehicle in question has not been altered, and it has 
been used only as a stage carriage, even when two or five extra 
persons have been carried. There is no other provision in Part A of the B 
Schedule to the Act which requires a higher rate of tax to be paid in 
I 
respect of a vehicle which is being used as a si"ge carriage on the basis 
of a larger number of passengers that are carried in it. It would have 
r 
been possible to levy a higher tax on the appellant only if the words 
\.. 
'which the vehicle is permitted to carry' in item 4(2) of Part A to the 
' 
Schedule to the Act had been omitted. These words cannot be ignored c 
in the construction of the said item since it relates to the levy of tax. 
Also, the provision in section 8 is specific. lt7G-H; 18A-C, F-G) 
The High Court in Noorullha Khan's case ov.,rlooked the pre-
sence of the words 'which the vehicle is permitted to carry', found also 
D 
.; 
in clause (b) of item 7 of the Karnataka Act. A law which imposes a 
tax should be construed strictly. A registered owner of a motor vehi-
cle, which is permitted to be used as a stage carriage cannot be asked 
to pay additional tax under section 8 of the Act merely because he has 
carried on some occasions more passengers than the maximum 
nnmber of passengers that he is permitted to carry under the permit. 
E 
The tax which he is liable to pay is limited by the maximum number of 
passengers he is entitled to carry under the permit. The Court does 
.i 
not Jigree with the decisions of the High Court in the Noorullha 
( 
Khan's case, which is overruled. The judgment of the High Court 
impugned set aside and the respondents directed not to levy the addi-
tional tax on the appellant under section 8 of the Karnataka Taxation 
F 
Act for carrying more passengers than what he was permitted to carry 
on some occassions during the period in question. Need impressed 
upon the authorities to enforce the provision in section 60 of the Motor 

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