1980 (6) TMI 119 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is leviable on vehicles used solely within private estates and not on public roads.
2. The interpretation of the term "used or kept for use in the State" in the context of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
3. The applicability of the definition of "motor vehicle" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended.

Summary:

Issue 1: Tax Liability on Vehicles Used Solely Within Private Estates
The appellant, Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd., argued that their vehicles, used exclusively within their private estates and not on public roads, should not be subject to tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963). The High Court of Kerala held that the tax is imposed on all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State, irrespective of whether they are used on public roads. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's interpretation that the tax is leviable on vehicles used or kept for use in the State, including those used solely within private estates.

Issue 2: Interpretation of "Used or Kept for Use in the State"
The Supreme Court examined the legislative intent and the relevant provisions of the Act. It was held that the phrase "used or kept for use in the State" should be interpreted to mean vehicles used or kept for use on public roads. However, the Court also noted that the Act includes provisions to prevent tax evasion, such as the presumption under Section 3(2) that a vehicle with a current registration certificate is deemed to be used or kept for use in the State unless a certificate of non-use is obtained.

Issue 3: Definition of "Motor Vehicle" Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
The appellant contended that the definition of "motor vehicle" under Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which excludes vehicles used solely upon the premises of the owner, should apply. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963, came into force after the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act in 1956, which confined the exemption to vehicles of a special type used only in a factory or enclosed premises. Therefore, the amended definition applies, and the vehicles in question do not qualify for exemption.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, holding that while the tax is leviable on vehicles used or kept for use on public roads, the appellant must comply with the requirements of Sections 3(2), 5, and 6 of the Act to claim exemption. The Court also clarified that the definition of "motor vehicle" under the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, applies, and the vehicles used solely within private estates are not exempt from tax. The appeals were allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.