STATE OF KARNATAKA versus K. GOPALAKRISHNA SHENOY & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 481 · Decided: 15-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF KARNATAKA 
A 
v. 
K. GOPALAKRISHNA SHENOY & ANR. 
JULY 15, 1987 
• 
[A.P. SEN, AND. S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
B 
The Mysore· (Now Kamataka) Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 
1957-S. 3( I) and Explanation theretO-Scope and effect of-,-Owner or 
a person having control or possession of a motor vehicle is statutorily 
obliged to pay tax in advance as long as Certificate of Registration is 
current, irrespective.of condition of vehicle and irrespective of Certifi· c 
cate of Fitness-The deeming effect of s. 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1939 does not extend to s. 3( l)and Explanation thereto of the Act. 
The first respondent sold his lorry to the second_ respondent but 
did not report the transfer to the Transport Authority and the latter 
issued a demand notice for payment of tax due under s. 3(1) of the D 
!\lysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. The first respondent re· 
-1 
futed his li~bility on the ground of transfer of the vehicle, and the 
· second respondent, on the plea that the vehicle was not in a lit condition 
and lying in a workshop during the relevant period., A complaint was 
filed against them under s. 3(1) read with s. 12(1)(a) of the Act. The 
!\lagistrate held that since the first respondent had sold the vehicle he E 
was not liable to pay the tax and, likewise, the second respondent too 
was not liable since the vehicle did not have a fitness certificate and had 
• 
been left in a workshop for repairs. The Magistrate further held that 
the currency of the Registration Certificate during the relevant period 
~ 
did not alter the situation in any manner because it could not have 
currency so as to attract tax liability when the vehicle was not covered F. 
by a valid Certificate of Fitness. The appeal filed against the acquittal of 
the respondents was dismissed in limine by the High Court. 
/.,,;._ 
Holding that the Trial Court wa~ In error in acquitting the res· 
\ 
pondents and the High Court was not justified in dismissing in limine 
the appeal against acquittal, and, allowing the appeal, this Court, · 
G 
.A . 
HELD: The expression 'suitable for use on roads' occurring in 
s. 3( 1) of the Act and its Explanation must have the same meaning as in 
Entry 57 of the State List and as construed by this Court in Automobile 
Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan; (1963} 1S.C.R.491. The resultant 
H 
position that emerges is thats. 3( 1) confers a right upon the State to le_vy 
., 
481 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1987] 3.S.C.R. 
A a tax on all motor vehicles which are suitably designed for use on roads 
at prescribed rates without reference to the road-worthy condition of 
the vehicle or otherwise. Section 4 enjoins every registered owner or 
person having possession or control of the motor vehicle to pay the tax 
in advance. The Explanation to s. 3(1) contains a deeming provision 
and its effect is that as long as the Certificate of Registration of a motor 
B 'ehicle is current, it must be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on 
the roads. The inevitable consequence of the Explanation would be that 
the owner or a person having control or possession of a motor vehicle is 
statutorily obliged to pay the tax in advance for the motor vehicle 
as long as the Certificate of Registration is current irrespective of 
the condition of the vehicle for use on the roads and irrespective of 
C whether the vehicle had a Certificate of Fitness with concurrent validity 
or not. [490B-C; E-G] 
State v. Boodi Reddappa, [ 1975] 1 Karnataka Law Journal 206, 
overruled. 
V. Naraina Reddy v. Commissioner of Transport, (1971] 2 
D Mysore Law Journal, 319, B.G. Bhagwan v. Regional Transport Offi-
cer, A.I.R. 1967 Mysore 139, discussed and distinguished. 
Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (1963] 1 SCR 
491 referred to. 
(ii) The scheme of the Act is such that the tax due on a motor 
E vehicle has got to be paid in terms of s. 3 a\ the prescribed rate, and in 
advance, and, the liability to pay tax continues as long as the Certificate 
of Registration is current; but, if it so happens that inspite of the 
Certificate of Registration being current, the vehicle had not actually 
been put to use for the whole of the period or a continuous part thereof, 
F 
G 
not being less than one calendar month, the person paying the tax 
should apply to the Prescribed Authority under s. 7 and obtain a refund 
of the tax for the appropriate period after satisfying the Authorities 
about the truth and genuineness of his clai

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