Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1955 DIGILAW 15 (KER)

Sundareswaran v. State

1955-01-12

KOSHI, M.S.MENON

body1955
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the registered owner of the goods vehicle T.C.Q. 9. It was registered in his name on 18.8.1950 under Chapter III of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939), and a permit under the said Act was issued to him in respect of the vehicle on 6.9.1950. 2. On 10.7.1953 the District Superintendent of Police, Traffic and Taxation Branch, Quilon, sent him a letter, Ext. A, which reads as follows: "Since the above vehicle was put on the road on 7.8.1950 for initial testing you are liable to pay tax for 8 & 9/50. Please therefore forward a receipted chalan for Rs. 288/- remitted under XII (b) to this office in seven days failing which you will be proceeded against without further notice". "8 & 9/50" means August and September, 1950, but it is admitted in paragraph 4 of the affidavit on behalf of the State that the demand for tax in respect of that month was due to a clerical error and that the only demand that we need consider is the demand for Rs. 144/- in respect of August, 1950. 3. Sub-s. (1) of S. 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provides that: "No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter (Chapter III) and the certificate of registration of the Vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner". and sub-s. (2): "Nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle while being driven within the limits of jurisdiction of one registering authority to or from the appropriate places of registration for the purpose of being registered under S. 23, 25 or 39 or to a motor vehicle exempted from the provisions of this Chapter while in the possession of a dealer in motor vehicles". According to the State if the vehicle was driven along the road for the purpose of being registered as contemplated in sub-s. (2) no offence would have been committed under the said enactment but a tax will none the less be attracted under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is based on Entry 35 in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, on Entry 57 in List II of the said Schedule and as the objects of the two enactments are entirely different and there is no conflict between them we see no objection to the acceptance of the contention urged on behalf of the State. 4. S. 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provides that subject to the provisions of S. 39 with which we are not concerned. "a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of S. 22, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in Form H as set forth in the first Schedule, issued by the prescribed authority, to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of Chapter V and the rules made thereunder". It was for the purpose of obtaining a certificate of fitness in Form H that the vehicle was driven along the public road to the place of inspection and back to the petitioner's garage on 7.8.1950 and the only question to be considered in this case is whether such a user will attract the tax under the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950. 5. S. 3(1) of that Act provides that: "Government may by notification in the Gazette from time to time direct that a tax shall be levied on every vehicle using any public road in the State". and on 25.7.1950 the Government issued a notification directing that "with effect from the quarter commencing on the first day of April 1950, a tax shall be levied on every vehicle using any public road in Travancore-Cochin State at the rates specified for such vehicle in the Schedule annexed hereto" (The Statutory Rules and Notifications of 1950, P. 76) Goods vehicle like T.C.Q. 9 come under Entry No. 3(h) of the Schedule: "Goods vehicles exceeding 110 cwt. but not exceeding 150 cwt. in weight laden". but not exceeding 150 cwt. in weight laden". and are liable to pay a tax at the rate specified against that Entry. 6. Entry No. 4 in the Schedule deals with "motor vehicles plying for hire and used for the transport of passengers and in respect of which permits have been issued under the law relating to motor vehicles for the time being in force" and the words "in respect of which permits have been issued" in the Entry make it quite clear that no taxation is contemplated prior to the issue of the permit as far as motor vehicles plying for hire and used for the transport of passengers are concerned and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the same result is obtained by the use of the words "weight laden" in Entry No. 3(h) of the Schedule. "Weight Laden" is not defined in the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, but "Laden weight" is defined in S. 2(2) of that Act as follows: "Laden weight" in relation to a motor vehicle means in case a permit is issued to the vehicle under the law relating to motor vehicles for the time being in force the maximum laden weight specified in such permit, if no such permit is issued, the maximum laden weight specified in the registration certificate of the vehicle and if such weight is not specified in such certificate, the maximum laden weight of the vehicle determined in such manner as the licensing officer may deem fit". According to the learned counsel the said definition should be considered as applicable to the term "weight laden" as well and if it is so applied "weight laden" being the weight specified in the permit, "and if no such permit is issued, the maximum laden weight specified in the registration certificate of the vehicle, and if such weight is not specified in such certificate, the maximum laden weight of the vehicle determined in such manner as the licensing officer may deem fit" taxation for a period anterior to the permit, registration certificate and certificate of fitness will be clearly beyond what is provided by the notification mentioned above. 7. 7. An interpretation clause provides for the modern statute, in the words of Craies on Statute Law (p. 152), "a little dictionary of its own, in which it endeavours to define, often arbitrarily, the chief terms used" and there can be no doubt that the use of such a "dictionary" should be confined solely to the terms defined therein. It is hence not possible to accept the contention that the definition of the term "laden weight" in S. 2(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, should be applied to the term "weight laden" occurring in the notification mentioned above. We also feel no doubt that if an exemption from taxation was intended for user prior to the permit, registration certificate and certificate of fitness, the wording of Entry No. 3(h) would have been not what it is but on the lines of Entry No. 4. 8. The only other ground taken in the petition is ground (f) of paragraph 5 of the petitioner's affidavit accompanying the petition and dated 28.10.1954: "If there is anything in the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act XIV of 1950 which justify the impugned demand, then to that extent it is in conflict with the Motor Vehicles Act which is a Central enactment. The former is a State Law". There is no relevant provision of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, or the Rules and Notifications issued thereunder which in any way conflicts with any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the exemption granted by sub-s. (2) of S. 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as indicated in paragraph 3 above has nothing to do with the demand in controversy in this petition before us. 9. Two other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-contentions not covered by the grounds taken in paragraph 5 of the affidavit mentioned above, the paragraph which deals with the grounds on which the petition is based - were that the conduct of the Government in accepting the tax for September, 1950, and for the subsequent periods estop them from demanding a tax at present in respect of September, 1950 and that in any case as the petitioner was not able to use the vehicle in September, 1950, for lack of the necessary permit no tax is payable as the tax in essence is nothing more than the price payable for a privilege. There can be no such estoppel in the matter of a statutory levy and the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, and the Rules and Notifications issued thereunder make it quite clear that any user it does not matter for what purpose - will attract the tax and make the petitioner liable for the same. 10. It follows that the petition has to be rejected and we do so; but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. 11. We need only add that the question involved in this petition is of no importance since the 15th of April 1952 in view of the notification of the Government of Travancore-Cochin of the said date which reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by S.11 of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950 (Act XIV of 1950). Government are hereby pleaded to exempt motor vehicles which during any specified taxation period, are used only for the purpose of inspection and obtaining a certificate of fitness under S. 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) from tax payable under the first mentioned Act in respect of such period: Provided, however, that in the case of a motor vehicle for which permit has been issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) the exemption shall apply only if the Licensing Authority has, immediately prior to the period of inspection, issued a certificate to the effect that no tax is in arrears in respect of the said vehicle". Dismissed.