LexTRAVANCORE TEA CO. LTD. ETC. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D F G 1388 TRAVANCORE TEA CO. LTD. BTC. v. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. June 3, 1980 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND p, S. 'KAILASAM, JJ.] Ker:Jla Moror Vehicles Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963) S<ctioru 3, 5 .and 6, scope of-"Motor Vehicles used for use in the State", whether the JUer or keeping for use in the State means user on public roads only. The Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963) """' bmnght into force on 1-7-63. The Act provides that a "tax at the rates fixed lly the Government by nOtification in the Gazette not exceeding tho marimnm rate specified in· the First Schedule shall be levied on all motor vehicles ~ or 1'ept for me in the state". The alJpellant company owned 17 motor vehicles, tracton, trailelll and lorries all of which are registered in the Company's name under the lillJO)r Vehicles Act. ·Tue Company alleged that the vehicles were purcbaoed by it oolely and exclusively for use in the estates and intended to be mcd Ollly for agricultural purpose and were not used nor kept for use in the S1are as oontemplated under section 3 of the Act. The Company is a tea pll'Ulllllioo having eight estates which )ie contiguous to each other and have an extent of 9422.44 acres in the aggregate. The Company for tlie purpose of plonlation are maintaining roods fit for vehlculer traffic in the eight estates covering a length of 131 miles in the aggregate. On 23rd September, 1964 a Bcd.fonl Lorry owned by the Company and bearing registration No. KLK 1540 wa.. seized by the Police and taken into custody in Tangamullay Estate wblch is one of the estates owned by the Company but later released on payment under protest a sum of Rs. 3150/- as tax for the period between 1-7-1963 to 31-1U4. The appellant Company filed O.P. 199 /65 before the High Court of Kerala claiming that they were not liable to pay any tax on the Motor Vehicles. The H'gh Court remanded the matter to the Transport Authority for a ftDdlag on the question raised. Since the Transport authorities was of the view that / Section 3 covers private roads as well and decided against the appellant, the ,4 appellant moved the High Court once again in O.P. 2173/68. Having Jost'/ before the single bench and the Division Bench in the Letters Patent appeal, · the appellant oome up in appeal by special leave. Allowing the appeals in part, the Court HELD : 1. On reading sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles f Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963), it is clear that a levy of tax is contemplaaod enly on the vehicles that are uoed or kept for the uso on the public """"' of ~ • the State. [1394GJ Boiani Ores Ltd., v. Stale of Ort.so, [197S] 2 SCR 13! @ US, explained H and distingnishcd. · 2. Entry 57 in List II of the Constitution relates to taxeo on vchicleo, whet- her mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads, including mun- • • '~ TRAVANCORE TEA CO. V. STATE OF KERALA 1389 'Clll'S subject to the provisions of entcy 35 of List Ill. This entry enables the State Government to levy a tax on <ill vehicles whether mechanically propelled <lr not, suitable for use on roads. Section 3 Of uie Kemla Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963) provides that a tax "shall be levied on all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State 1'. The vehicles in the instant case are mechanicWly propelled and suitable for use on roads. The levy is Within the competence of the State Legislature as Entcy 57 in List II auth<>- rires the levy on vehicles suitable for use tm roods. [1393 B-EJ 3. In order to l~vy a tax on vehicles used or kept for use on public roads of the Stare and at the same time to avoid evasion of tax the legislature has prescribed the procedure. Under sub section 2 of section 3 there is a ·pre- "1llllption that a motor vehicle for which l,he certificate of regisjration is ::"\;~t shall be deemed to be used or kept for use in the State. Section 3(2) ~eguanls the revenue of the State by relieving it from the burden of proving - ·tbBt the vehicle was used or kept for use on the public roods of the State. At tfu same time the interest of the bonafide ownel'ls safeguarded by enabling him to claim and obtain a certificate of non-user from the prescribed authority . .In order to enable the owner of the vehicle or the person who is in pos.5e'SSion ·or being in control of the motor vehicles of which the certificate Of registra- tion is c;urrent to claim exemption from tax he should
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.