STATE OF MYSORE & ORS. versus T. V. SUNDARA.M IYENGAR & SONS (P) LTD.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 13-11-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1 
STATE OF MYSORE & ORS. 
v. 
T. V. SUNDARA.M IYENGAR & SONS (P) LTD. 
November 13, 1979 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, JJ.j 
ltfotor Veldcles 'Taxatio,1 Act, 1957-Section 3(2)-Velzicle _vassi11g tlirougli 
'1 State for .short period_iJJ "kept" within ~he nieaning of section. 
The respondent bought new cars and chassis manufactured in Bonibay p.nd 
brought them by road. In the course of their 
journey 
from 
Bombay to 
Madras the vehicles passed through the territory of the State of Mysore for 
over 400 miles. 
The Road Transport Authorities of the State of 1'-fysore de-
manded payment of road tax on the vehicles under section 3 (2) of the Mysore 
,Motor \ 1ehicles Taxation Act, 1957 which provides that taxes are leviable _on 
motor vehicles· belonging to or in the 
posse.Bsion or· control of persons 
not 
ordinarily resident in the State of Mysore and kept in the ,State 
for periods 
~horter than a quarter but not exceeding thirty days. 
Allowing the respondent's writ petition the High Court held that vehicles 
which passed through the State were not "kept" in the State 'vithin the meaning 
Of section '3(2) of the Act and so were not taxable under it. 
In appeal to this court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the 
vehicles passing th.rough the territo1y of the State over a distance of 400 nlllcs 
A 
B 
c 
D 
with halts on the way couJd tic said to! have been "kept' for use on 1oads in th'!' 
E 
State within the mealling of 'the section and were therefore taxable. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : A vehicle in transit through the State of Ji.1ysore or even n1ak.ing 
necessary halt for short intervals during transit cannot be said to be a vehicle 
kept for use on roads in the State of Mysore. [6 B-0] 
The word "kept", which has not been defined in the Act, bas to be interM 
pretcd ·in its ordinary popular sense consistent with the context. In associatioii 
With the use of the vehicle the word "kept" has an element of stationariness which 
is something different! from a state of trWit or a course of journey through tho 
State. A mere state of running through or even halting of the vehicle in the 
course of the journey throuWt the State· for its outside destination, 'vill not be 
"Sufficient to constitute "keeping" of that vehicle i.n the State within the meaning 
of section 3(2). [4 C-E & 5 E] 
Dudley v. Holland [1963] 3 All. E.R. 732, Biggs v. Mitchell (1862), 31 
L.J.M.C. 163, referred to. 
F 
G 
Clv!L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 272 of 1970. 
Appeal by Special Leavo from the Judgment and Order dated 
11 
14-4-1969 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. No. 2889/67. 
R. N. Nath and M. Veeraf;pa for the Appellant. 
i: 
\' 
(
~. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 2 S.C.R. 
M. Natesan and Mrs. 's. Gopa/akrishnan for the Respondent. 
The Jud!Jllient of the Court was delivered by 
SARKARIA, J. 
Whether a motor vehicle passing through the terri-
tory of the State of Mysore on way to its destination in another State 
is a motor vehicle "kept" in the State of Mysore (now Karnataka) 
within the contemplation of Section 3 (I) of the Mysore Motor Vehi-
cles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Taxation Act), 
is the short question that falls for consideration in this appeal by 
special leave directed against a judgment, dated April 14, 1969, of the 
High Court of Mysore. 
The material facts bearing on the question 
are as follows : 
The respondent, M/s. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons. Pvt. Ltd., 
whose registered office is in the State of Tamil Nadu, is a dealer in 
motor vehicles which are manufactured at Bombay. Some of those 
vehicles are sold in Mysore State, while others are sold outside Mysore 
State. But those vehicles which are sold outside the State of Mysore 
in other States pass through its territory under temporary registration 
number plates issned after receipt of token tax by the Bombay Motor 
Vehicles Authority. 
Such vehicles enter the State of Mysore at it3 
border in Belgaum District and go out at its border in Kolar District, 
thus running through the territory of Mysore State by road over a 
distance of about 400 miles. 
The R.T.0., Belgaum, issued a communication, dated September 
27, 1966, to the respondent demanding tax on such vehicles (new cars 
and chassis) passing through the territory of Mysore. After cxhanst-
ing his remedies under the Taxation Act, the respondent'flled a petition 
under Article, 226 of the Constitution, to challenge the va

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