STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. versus N. MADAPPA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 02-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
v. 
N. MADAPPA AND ORS. ETC. 
MAY 2, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G. B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Kamataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (As amended by Act 14 
of1989): 
· S.3(4)-Levy of tax at enhanced rates on excess passengers-Govem-
ment of Kamataka levying additional tax at specified rates on Vehicles 
canying 011 passengers in excess of pennitted capacity of the vehicle-Held, 
power of State Govemment to levy tax at enhanced rate on excess passengers 
Oil findillg the vehicle to be overloaded in excess of prescribed limit is not 
consistent lVith the schenie under s.lr-A111endment is not valid in law. 
Constitution of lndia, 1950: 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Seventh Schedule, List 11, Ellfry 57, List Ill, Entry 35--Taxes Oil 
Vehicles-held, there is no law made by parliament occupyillg the field under 
Entry 35 of List JI!, therefore State legislature has power Ullder Entry 57 of E 
list II to make law levying tax Oil vehicles-However, sub-section (4) of s. 3 
as inserted by Act 14 of 1989 in Kamataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1957 providing 
for additional tax on vehicles canyillg Oil passengers in excess of pennitted 
capacity of the vehicle is not consistent with the scheme under s.8 of the 
p1incipal Act and as such the antend1nent is not valid in law. 
Narasimhaiah v. Dy. Commissioner for Transport, [1987] Supp. SCC 
452 relied on. 
Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. Etc. v. State of Rajasthan & 
F 
Ors., AIR (1962) SC 1406, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8843-
8850 of 1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.90 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W .P. No. 14029-036 of 1989. 
H 
291 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996[ SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
M. Veerappa for the Appellants. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Mrs. Kiran Suri for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
These appeals by special leave arise against the judgments dated 
18.10.1990 and 18.2.1991 of the Division Bench of the High Court of 
Karnataka made in W.P. Nus. 14029-036/89 and 159/9 I. The appdlant had 
introduced by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act 
14 of 1989, sub-section (4) of Section 3 which reads as under: 
Item 
No. 
1. 
xx 
"Amendment of Section 3: After sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of 
the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 
35 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), the 
following shall be inserted, namely : 
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), 
a special additional tax at the rates specified in Part-D of the 
Schedule shall be levied on motor vehicle suitable for use on roads 
carrying passengers or goods in excess of the permitted capacity 
of the vehicles. 
(5) Insertion of new part 'D' alter Part 'C' and before the Explana-
tion, the following shall be inserted, namely : 
Class of Vehicle 
-
Passenger vehicles carrying 
passengers in excess of the 
permitted capacity, for every 
such excess passenger. 
xx 
-
Special additional tax 
each occasion on which 
excess is carried. 
Rs. 
Ps. 
20-00 
xx 
-
- . 
for 
such 
STATE v. N.MADAPPA 
293 
(G) In the Explanation, in paragraph (3) after the words A 
'Corporation', the \VOrds 'Or a Bank or a Board or a Co-operative 
Society or such other institution as may be notified by the State 
Government in this behalf shall be inserted. 
8. Power to remove difficulty - If any difficulty arises in giving effect 
to the provisions of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, the 
State Government may, by Notification in the official gazelle make 
such provisions as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient 
for removing the said difficulty. 
B 
Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of C 
a period of two years from the date of commencement of this Act." 
The respondents have challenged the validity of the above provisions. 
The Division Bench had held the State Government is devoid of power to 
levy tax at the enhanced rate on the passengers. It followed the ratio laid 
down by this Court in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. Etc. v. State D 
of Rajasthan & Oi:>., AIR (1962) SC 1406 and held that there is no 
competence of the State Legislature to enact sub-section ( 4) except to 
enforce Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) which is 
equivalent to Section 86 of the 1988 Act to levy tax on extra passengers 
and goods. 
E 
The question, 

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