JUDGMENT : 1. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up together for consideration, and disposed by this Common judgment. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions had purchased and imported motor cars from the respective manufacturers, for the purposes of use in India. The imports effected are on various dates before 23.07.2014, on which date, the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act were amended to substitute a new definition for the term “Purchase Value” in Section 2(e) therein. The petitioners had, after import of the vehicle, approached the Registering authority, for registration of the vehicle under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, when they were asked to discharge the motor vehicle tax liability, under Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, on the purchase value of the vehicle, as defined in Section 2(e) of the said Act. The petitioners were ready to discharge the tax liability on the purchase value as defined under the un-amended provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, as it stood prior to 23.07.2014. Although the respondents took a stand that the petitioners would have to include the customs duty component in respect of the vehicles also in purchase value declared for the purposes of payment of tax under the un-amended provisions, pursuant to directions from this Court in writ petitions that were filed by the petitioners, the petitioners were permitted to register the vehicles by paying tax on the value determined as per the un-amended provision. Thereafter, the respondents, after noticing the amendment that was brought in on 23.07.2014, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007, initiated steps to recover the differential tax amounts from the petitioners, based on the amended provisions of the Act. It is at this stage that the petitioners approached this Court through the present writ petitions. 3. At the time of admission, this Court granted the petitioners an interim stay against recovery of the differential tax amount on condition that the petitioners paid 50% of the amount demanded in the demand notice by way of cash or if they furnished a bank guarantee for the entire amount demanded, within a period of 10 days from the date of the order. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have complied with the directions issued by this Court and the interim order against stay of recovery of the balance amount continues to be in force even today. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, the stand taken is that, inasmuch as the provisions of Section 2(e) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act were amended retrospectively with effect from 01.04.2007, the petitioners could not escape from their liability to pay differential tax on the revised purchase value contemplated under the amended provisions. 5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. V.V. Asokan, as duly assisted by Sri. T.C. Suresh Menon for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that it would be profitable at the outset to refer to the definition of “Purchase Value” as obtained under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, prior to and subsequent to 23.07.2014. 6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that it would be profitable at the outset to refer to the definition of “Purchase Value” as obtained under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, prior to and subsequent to 23.07.2014. The definition of “Purchase Value” as is stood under the Act till 23.07.2014, reads as follows: 2[(e) “purchase value” means the value of the vehicles as shown in the original purchase invoice: Provided that where the purchase value of any vehicle including a vehicle imported from other countries or a vehicle acquired or obtaining otherwise that by way of purchase, is not ascertainable on account of non-availability of the invoice, then the purchase value shall be the value or price at which the vehicles of like kind or of same specifications is already registered or available with the manufactures or as fixed by the Customs and Central Excise Department for the purposes of levying customs duty, as the case may be.” The amended provision, consequent to the amendment dated 23.07.204 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007, reads as follows: 2[(e) “purchase value”, means the value of the vehicle as shown in the purchase invoice and includes value added tax, cess and customs/excise duty chargeable on vehicle: Provided the discount or rebate given by the dealer to the registered owner shall not be deducted from the bill amount for computing the purchase value: Provided further that where the purchase value of any vehicle including a vehicle imported from other counties or a vehicle acquired or obtained otherwise than by way of purchase, is not ascertainable on account of non availability of the invoice, the purchase value shall be the value or price of the vehicles of the same specifications which are already registered or available with the manufacturer or as fixed by the Customs and Central Excise Department for the purchase of levying customs duty, and includes excise or customs duty levyed on the purchase of a motor vehicle, as the case may be.] The liability to pay tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act is as indicated in Section 3 of the Act and the tax is to be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State, at the rate specified for such vehicle in the schedule. By a proviso, it is made clear that, in respect of a new motor vehicle of any of the classes in the schedule, there shall be levied from the date of purchase of the vehicle one-time tax at the rate specified in Annexure I, at the time of first registration of the vehicle, and thereafter, tax shall be levied at the time of renewal of registration of such vehicle or on the expiry of the life-time tax already paid at the rate specified in the schedule as per fourth proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 4: As per the schedule to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, which prescribes the rate at which the one-time tax is to be paid, the motor vehicles imported by the petitioners are liable to tax at the rate of 15% of the purchase value of the vehicle. It was accordingly that the petitioners discharged the liability at the rate of 15% , of the purchase value of the vehicles as defined under the un-amended provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, at the time of registering the vehicles with the Regional Transport Authority. The issue to be decided in these cases is whether the respondents are justified in demanding the differential tax liability, based on the amended definition of “purchase Value” under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, which has been given retrospective effect from 01.04.2007. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in D.Cawasji & Co. v. The State of Mysore And Others [1985 (58) STC page 1] as also of the Division Bench Decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Lissey James [(1997) KLJ(Tax Cases)213] to contend that, inasmuch as the un-amended definition of “purchase value” under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, did not contemplate the inclusion of customs duty and value added tax in the purchase value of the vehicle for the purposes of payment of tax, it was not open to the state legislature to include the said components into the definition of “purchase value”, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007. It is contended that the import of the vehicle was done with a particular tax structure in mind and the decision to import was itself taken, keeping in mind the tax impact that would have to be borne by the petitioners, consequent to the import of the vehicle and subsequent registration of the same within the state. The decisions relied upon hold that, wherever there is a fresh levy of tax on an item that was not earlier subjected to tax under a taxing statute, the fresh levy of tax, if given a retrospective effect, would be considered unreasonable and the operation of the fresh levy would be confined to a prospective period only. 7. The learned Government Pleader, justifying the demand of differential tax, would contend that, the levy under the Act is in respect of motor vehicles that are either used or kept for use in the state, and the said levy stood attracted to the vehicles imported by the petitioners also. It is pointed out that, in the instant case, it is only the purchase value, that is adopted for the purposes of determining the quantum of tax in respect of the vehicle, that has been amended with retrospective effect. It is his submission that, the mere amendment to the definition of “purchase value” cannot be seen as casting an unreasonable burden on the petitioners in respect of their liability to motor vehicle tax in respect of the imported vehicles. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nagendra Mani N. v. State of Kerala and Others [(2015) 4 KHC 313]. 8. On a consideration of the rival submissions, I find that, unlike in the case of the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, this is not a case where a levy has been introduced for the first time in respect of motor vehicles that are imported and used, or kept for use, within the State. The levy of motor vehicle tax was contemplated under Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act even before the amendment referred to above. The definition of the term “Purchase Value”, which determines the measure of the tax that is levied by the state legislature, did not, prior to its amendment with retrospective effect, provide for inclusion of the customs duty or VAT component therein. The definition of the term “Purchase Value”, which determines the measure of the tax that is levied by the state legislature, did not, prior to its amendment with retrospective effect, provide for inclusion of the customs duty or VAT component therein. The amendment with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007 changed the above position and, after 23.07.2014, the determination of purchase value of the vehicle from 01.04.2007, is to be done by including the components of customs duty and VAT. I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the said retrospective amendment of the definition of “purchase value” would impose an un-reasonable burden on the petitioners in the matter of taxation. The legislative competence of the State legislature to levy a tax on motor vehicles cannot be disputed. The question then arises as to whether the retrospective amendment of the definition of purchase value, which determines the measure of the tax, can be said to be violative of the constitutional provisions. I note in this connection that a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the said issue while disposing appeals preferred by assessees who claimed refund of excess motor vehicles tax collected from them under the unamended provisions of the Act. The contention raised by the assessees was that, this Court had, in the decision reported in Fathima Shirin v. Joint Regional Transport Officer [2013(3) KHC 714] held that the term purchase value, under the unamended provisions of the Act, means only the invoice price of the vehicle, which does not include VAT paid or payable, and hence they were entitled to a refund of the excess tax paid, on the tax component of the purchase value, prior to the amendment. The Division Bench in Nagendra Mani N. v. State of Kerala and Others [2105(4) KHC 313] found that in the absence of any pleading in the writ petitions challenging the legality or constitutionality of the amendment brought about to Section 2(e) of the Act as per the Kerala Finance Act 2014 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007, the refund claim deserved to be rejected in limine. The Court, however, took note of the fact that the learned Single Judge had considered the issue of validity of the retrospective amendment in his judgment and proceeded to uphold the said findings with the following observations. “8. The Court, however, took note of the fact that the learned Single Judge had considered the issue of validity of the retrospective amendment in his judgment and proceeded to uphold the said findings with the following observations. “8. In the above context, the learned counsel contended that the said amendment virtually nullified the decision in Fathima Shirin's Case. Though, the appellants had not challenged the legality of the amendment retrospectively brought about to S.2(e) of the MVT Act, in the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge elaborately considered the same and positively affirmed the legal validity of the amendment. What is the legal effect and consequential impact thereon caused by the decision in Fathima Shirin's case? The learned counsel reiterated his contention, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge, that the verdict passed by this Court in Fathima Shirin's case is a 'declaratory judgment' and thereby the benefit under the said judgment is liable to be extended to all concerned. On an analysis of the decision in Fathima Shirin's case, it is pertinent to note that none of the provisions under the MVT Act was declared ultra vires or illegal. Since the introduction of the 'one-time tax' with effect from 01.04.2007, purchase value was being reckoned including various components such as excise/customs duty, value added tax etc., and tax was being collected accordingly till the laying of decision, restricting the meaning of 'purchase value' by excluding those components, in Fathima Shirin's case. This previous practice shows that what was really intended by the Legislature, while defining 'purchase value' under S.2(e) and the charging provision under S.3 of the MVT Act, was to realise tax on total purchase price, including various components such as excise/ customs duty, value added tax etc. Thus, the decision in Fathima Shirin's case caused a situation which necessitated to make a clarification, by way of amendment, specifically describing all the components constituting the purchase value with retrospective effect from the date of introduction of the 'one-time tax'. We are also endorsing the views of the learned Single Judge that amendment brought about to the term 'purchase value' under S.2(e) of the MVT Act as per the Kerala Finance Act, 2014 is only 'clarificatory in nature', as nothing new was introduced or declared or declared illegal or invalid. We are also endorsing the views of the learned Single Judge that amendment brought about to the term 'purchase value' under S.2(e) of the MVT Act as per the Kerala Finance Act, 2014 is only 'clarificatory in nature', as nothing new was introduced or declared or declared illegal or invalid. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, there was no attempt to nullify the decision in Fathima Shirin's case and the clarification was mad to make clear the intent of the legislation, which was brought into force from 01.04.2007. 9. The scope and extent of the power of Legislature to amend the existing law with retrospective effect affecting or wiping out the decision rendered earlier by the Court was considered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Sri. Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. Etc. v. Broach Borough Municipality and Others, 1969 KHC 516 : 1969 (2) SCC 283 : AIR 1970 SC 192 : 1971 (79) ITR 136 and affirmed the wide power of Legislature unambiguously. Again, relying on the above decision, the Apex Court reiterated the power of Legislature to enact validating Acts in Bhuvaneshwar Singh and Another v. Union of India and Others, 1994 KHC 1058 : 1994(6) SCC 77 . 10. The proposition which culled out from the above decisions can be summarised as follows: If the Legislature has legislative competency, they can legislate on the subject either prospectively or retrospectively and such power cannot be questioned, provided that such legislation shall not be made in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. The Legislature has power to validate action taken under a particular enactment by removing defect in the original Statute retrospectively because of which the Statute or the part of it had been declared ultra vires. The Legislature can, at any time, make a valid law and make it retrospectively so as to bind the past transactions. The validation of tax, which was declared illegal by the Court of law is legal and permissible if the grounds of illegality or invalidity are capable of being removed and are, in fact, removed and tax thus made legal. The Legislature has power to give its own meaning and interpretation of law and also to give a new meaning binding on Courts. The Legislature has power to give its own meaning and interpretation of law and also to give a new meaning binding on Courts. The exercise of rendering ineffective judgments or orders of competent Courts by changing the very basis by legislation is a well-known device of validating legislation. Sometimes, the Legislature gives its own meaning and interpretation of the law under which the tax was collected and by legislative fiat makes the new meaning binding upon Courts. A valid and proper legislation may neutralise or render earlier decision ineffective after change of law by way of amendment.” Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, I have to find against the petitioners on this issue. 9. The writ petitions, in their challenge against the demand notices, therefore fail, and are accordingly, dismissed. Taking note of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, with regard to the hardship that would be occasioned if the respondents demand interest also, on the differential tax amounts demanded, and with a view to ensure an expeditious payment of the differential tax by the petitioners herein, I make it clear that, if the petitioners pay the differential tax amounts to the respondents, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then the said differential tax amounts, shall not carry any interest. If the tax amounts are not paid within the time granted in this judgment, however, the petitioners will be liable to interest on the delayed payment of tax.