LexNAZEERIA MOTOR SERVICE ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
52
NAZEERIA MOTOR SERVICE ETC. ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
August 21, 1969
(J. C. SHAH,ACTING C.J., V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER,
B
JJ.J
Constitution of India, Arts, 301, 304(b) and 19(l)(g) and Andhra
Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) An1endn1ent
a11d Validatio11 Act XXXIV of 196!-Constit1o!io11a/ity of fares
and
freights imposed by the Act.
The appellants, motor transport operators, challenged the increase in
C
surcharge of the fares and f:><ights imposed by the Andhra Pradesh Motor
Vehicles (Taxation of Pas5"ngers and Goods) Amendment and Validation
Act, 1961. They uraed : (i) the Act was neither rel!Ulalory nor compensa·
tory in nature and it fell directly within the mischief of Art. 301 of the
Constitution; (ii) the imposts exceeded the limils of permissible reasonable-
ness, were not in the public interest and. therefore. violated Arts. 304(b)
and 19(1)(g); and (iii) the Act violated Art. 14 (a) inasmuch as it had
not been made applicable to the Telegana area although it was appli. able
D
to the Andhra area and (b) the vehicles on inter-State routes on permits
granted by other States h;:d not bc·on subjected to tax.
HELD : · (i) It was not the contentio;1 of the State that the i'lpugned
Act imposed a tax by way of a regulatory or compensatory measure. There·
fore, it had to be ~cen \Vhether the restrictions imposed were reasonr.ble,..
and in the public interest within the n1eaning of Art. 304(b); these ques-
tions were open to examination by the court notwithstanding the fact that
E
the sanction of the Pre~ident was obtained :n-compliance with the ArfcJe.
[55 E-FJ
Mathurai Pii/ay v. S:ate of Madras. (1954) I M.L.J. 110, Automobile
Tran.roort (Raia<tlwn) Ltd. v. Stat.e of Rajasthan & Ors. [1963] I S.C.R.
49-1, Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. &
Anr. v.
State of Assam. [1964]
5
· S.C.R. 975 and Atiahari Tea Co. Ltd. , .. State of Asram, [1961] 1 S.C.R.
809, referred to.
F
(ii) There was no material which would justify the view that the tax
\Vhich had been imposed exceeded the limit of permissible re.asonabI~ness
or was not in the public ~inte~st. Thz argun1ent that by raising the. rate of
tax the burden hod been increa•ed to 1uch an extent that the business of
the appellon:s had been virtually annihilated had no
substance.
The
operators hnd been permitted to enhance the freights and if the freights
could be enhanced, obviously, the burdeo would not fall on them. If the
G
operators were not prepared to charge higher rates as a matter of p·JJicy or
for the purpose of business cornpetifrJn that could not impin_ge on the
reasonab}l:ness of the restrictions.
This disposed of the challen.'!:e under
Art. 19(1 ){g) also and even on the assumption that th' pcofits would be
diminished or greatly reduced it could not -he held that there was any infrin·
gement of Art. 19( 1 )(g). [57 A-DJ
(iii) Under Act XVI of 1952 as amended by
Act X of 1958 the
H
G·ove.rnment could grant exemption fron1 payment of tax, by means of a
notification, in respect of any motor vehicle. running in a particular area,
and such an exemption was .i:i:iven to the operators in the Telengana region
-
A
B
NAZEERIA MOTOR SERVICE v. A. P. STATE (Grover, J.)
53
for the reason that before the extension of the Act XVI of 1952 to this
area no tax similar to the one levi·!d under that Act was payable in that
area and that thh exemption was granted under a different enactment.
Therefore, the challenge Under Art. 14 could not sucee<l. [58 A-CJ
No question of discrimination arose when taxes were being imposed
under two different sets of laws in different States or geographical areas
The laws in Madras and Aodhra Prade"'h were different and persons having
primary permits from Madras were naturally governed by the laws operat-
ing in that State [58 C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeals Nos. 69,
112 and 113 of 1968.
Appeal from the judgment an:! order dated October 25, 1962
c
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1307,
1305 and 1353 of 1961.
K. Srinivasamurlhy and Naunit Lal, for the appellants (in all
the appeals) .
P. Ram Reddy and P. Parmeshwara Rao, for the respondent
o
No. 1 (in all the appeals).
E
F
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grover, J, These appeals by certificate from a judgment of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court which disposed of several peti-
tions under Art. 226 of the. Constitution includinExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.