Judgment :- Om Prakash, CJ. In the fascicle of appeals. arising from a common judgment dated August 8.1996 delivered in O.P.No. 8777 of 1993 and other connected cases. the short question for consideration is whether the vehicles used for imparting instructions in driving are liable to be taxed under residuary Entry 7 or Entry 3(A) of the Schedule appended to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. 1976 (briefly. 'the Act of 1976). 2. The fact situation in all the cases is almost the same and. therefore. it will suffice if we state the facts as stated in O.P. No. 8777 of 1993. The petitioner carried on a driving school under the name and style 'Haneesh Motor Driving School' at Quilandy. which is recognised by the Government of Kerala. The petitioner obtained a licence under Rr. 24(1). 24(4) and 25 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules to run the school. The petitioner purchased a vehicle bearing registration No. KLH 3675 to impart instructions in driving heavy vehicles. The vehicle was being operated earlier as a stage carriage. After purchasing the vehicle. the petitioner made necessary changes in the vehicle fitting therein additional clutch. brake etc. for using it to instruct the students. It is not disputed that the vehicle was being used only for imparting instructions in driving. The contention of the petitioner is that since the vehicle was being used only to impart instructions in driving. the tax has to be determined under residuary Entry 7 of the Schedule of the Act of 1976. 3. On the other hand. the contention of the respondent (appellant herein) is that after the amendment made in 1993. Entry 3A was inserted and the vehicle of the petitioner then came to be covered thereunder. Entry 3A reads as under: "3 A. Private service vehicles. for every seated passenger (other than the driver)100.00" 4. The learned single judge while deciding the bunch of cases held vide impugned judgment dated 8th August. 1996 that the vehicle of the petitioner used for teaching in the 'driving school. would fall under Entry 7 and not under Entry 3 or 3A. The learned judge concluded so relying on a judgment of this Court (See Sukumamn v. Transport Commissioner. 1991 (1) KLT 779). which decided the position as obtaining prior to 1993. Prior to 1993. Entry 3 was as under: "3. would fall under Entry 7 and not under Entry 3 or 3A. The learned judge concluded so relying on a judgment of this Court (See Sukumamn v. Transport Commissioner. 1991 (1) KLT 779). which decided the position as obtaining prior to 1993. Prior to 1993. Entry 3 was as under: "3. Goods Vehicles: (a) Motor Cycle not exceeding 300 Kg in laden weight - 80.00 (b) Vehicles not exceeding 1000 Kg in laden weight ~ 130.00 (c) Vehicles exceeding 1000kg. but not exceeding 1500 Kg in laden weight - 250.00 (d) Vehicles exceeding 1500kg. but not exceeding 2000kg in laden weight - 330.00 (e) vehicles exceeding 2000kg. but not exceeding 3000kg in laden weight - 430.00 (f) Vehicles exceeding 3000 Kg. but not exceeding 4000 Kg in laden weight - 510.00" 5. The question in the case of Sukumaran (supra) was whether the vehicles being used for imparting instructions in driving. fall under Entry 3 or 7 of the Schedule. The Court then held mat such vehicles would fall under residuary Entry 7 and not 3. 6. By Amendment of 1993. a new Entry 3A was inserted as reproduced above. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that after the 1993 amendment. such vehicle will fall under Entry 3 A and not under Entry 7. The contention proceeds on the footing that Entry 3A was especially inserted by the amendment of 1993 to take the vehicle; in question within its ambit. 7. For the first time by the Act 10 of 1997. Entry 13.6 was inserted as follows: "13.6. Vehicles exclusively used for imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles, - (a) Light motor vehicles excluding motorcar - 500.00 (b) Medium goods/passenger vehicles - 1000.00 (c) Heavy goods/passenger vehicles - 1.500.00" 8. It is important to note that even after the amendment of 1997. Entry 3A inserted by the 1993 amendment. continued to remain in force. though the same was renumbered as Entry 5 after the amendment of 1997. If Entry 3A corresponding to Entry 5 was inserted to cover the vehicle in question. then it remains inexplicable as to why the separate Entry 13.6 referring to such type of vehicle. was inserted by the 1997 amendment. It is plain enough that the Legislature always avoids repetition and multiplicity. If Entry 3A corresponding to Entry 5 is taken to have covered the vehicle of this nature. then it remains inexplicable as to why the separate Entry 13.6 referring to such type of vehicle. was inserted by the 1997 amendment. It is plain enough that the Legislature always avoids repetition and multiplicity. If Entry 3A corresponding to Entry 5 is taken to have covered the vehicle of this nature. then it was futile for the Legislature to insert Entry 13.6 by the 1997 amendment clearly referring to the vehicle of this type. On the analogy of the submission of the Government Pleader that Entry 3 A covers the vehicle in question. it will be nothing but logical to hold that the vehicle in question will be covered by Entry 5 after the 1997 amendment. and if that is so. then there was no need for the Legislature to make another Entry 13.6. especially referring to the vehicle in question. Entry 13.6 and Entry 5 in juxtaposition. clearly indicate that the two are different in nature and the scope of the two is not identical. From this inference. it logically follows that Entry 3 A is also different in the scope and nature and the contention of the Government Pleader that the vehicles used for imparting instructions in driving are covered by Entry 3A. does not hold to be good. Insertion of Entry 13.6 of the Schedule clearly holds a clue that Entries 3 A and 5. which are identical. operate in different field and their scope is entirely different from that of Entry 13.6. Whereas Entry 13.6 of the Schedule takes the vehicle in question within its ambit. Entries 3A and 5 pertain to other vehicles. 9. For these reasons. it i s difficult for us to accept the contention of the Government Pleader that after the amendment of 1993. vehicles especially used for imparting instructions in driving. came to be covered by Entry 3A. which corresponds to Entry 5 of the Schedule as inserted by the amendment of 1997. Therefore. we are of the view that the learned single judge was right in relying on the ratio of Sukumaran (Vupra). Residuary Entry 7. as it existed prior to the amendment of 1993. continued in the same fashion even after the amendment of 1993. Surely. the vehicles used for imparting instructions in driving. do not fall under Entry 3A. inserted by the amendment of 1993. If that were so. Residuary Entry 7. as it existed prior to the amendment of 1993. continued in the same fashion even after the amendment of 1993. Surely. the vehicles used for imparting instructions in driving. do not fall under Entry 3A. inserted by the amendment of 1993. If that were so. the Legislature would not have thought of to insert Entry 13.6 by the amendment of 1997. Till specific entry 13.6 was inserted. the vehicle exclusively used for imparting instructions did fall under residuary Entry 7. For the above reasons. all the appeals fail and are dismissed.