K.K.Sasidharan - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.10.2003 in W.P.No.1993/1997 confirming the proceedings of the Regional Transport Officer taxing the motorcycles as commercial vehicles, the unsuccessful Writ Petitioner has preferred this appeal. Background facts :- 2.The appellant is the owner of a driving school at Namakkal. The appellant is also the owner of two motorcycles bearing nos. TDW 8425 (Scooter) and TAL 4805 (Moped without gear). Both these vehicles were registered in the name of the appellant for personal use. The appellant used those two motorcycles for the purpose of the driving school which made the Regional Transport Officer, Namakkal to pass the order dated 01.10.1996 directing the appellant to pay vehicle tax for the two motorcycles treating the same as commercial vehicles. The appellant was directed to pay tax under the caption "others" as per clause 7 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974. The said proceeding was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.1993/1997. 3.Before the learned Single Judge, it was the contention of the appellant that the two motorcycles registered in his personal name were used for imparting training in the driving school and the same was not used for hire or reward. The appellant also contended that Tamil Nadu Taxation Act does not contain any provision requiring payment of tax applicable to a commercial vehicle in the event of a motorcycle being used for purposes other than personal. According to the appellant, in the absence of a separate schedule for extra levy, it was not permissible for the transport authorities to claim extra tax only on the basis of different user. Finding :- 4.The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the vehicles were used only for the purpose of driving school and as such, the usage was not personal. The learned Judge observed that the registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner in his individual name by itself cannot be taken to mean that it would fall under the category of "individual" under sl.no.7 of the I Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, so as to qualify him to pay the tax at lesser rate treating the usage as personal. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge negatived the contention with regard to taxation on the basis of usage but however, reduced the penalty by 50%. It is the said order which is impugned in the present writ appeal. Submissions :- 5.The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that there is no specific entry in the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 authorizing the transport authorities to collect tax at a different rate in the event of the motorcycle being used for a purpose other than "personal". According to the learned Counsel, there should be a specific head in the Taxation Act authorizing the authorities to collect tax and they cannot collect tax by assumption. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the vehicle was admittedly used for the purpose of the driving school and as such, the appellant was bound to pay the tax at the rate applicable to "others" and therefore the contention that the appellant is liable to pay tax only as an individual does not merit consideration. Analysis :- 7.The proceedings impugned before the learned Single Judge was issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Namakkal solely on the ground that the two motorcycles were used for imparting training and as such, the appellant was not qualified to pay tax at the rate applicable to an individual, but he is liable to pay tax under the category "others". The Sl.No.7 of the I Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 provides that in the case of motor vehicles, other than those liable to tax under the other provisions of the schedule weighing more than 700 kgs, unladen and owned by an individual, a sum of Rs.600 has to be paid as annual tax. But on the other hand, if it was owned by "others", a sum of Rs.1,200/- has to be paid. There is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, requiring payment of extra tax in the event of the motorcycle being used for a different purpose like the one in the present matter. Admittedly, unladen weight of the motor vehicle is less than 700 kgs. and it is also registered in the name of the appellant in his individual capacity. The usage of the vehicle for a different purpose would be considered as violation of the policy condition in case the insurer prescribes a condition that there would be no coverage in the event of the vehicle being used for a purpose other than personal. However, unless there is a particular provision in Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 enabling the transport authorities to claim tax at a different rate, it is not possible for them to collect extra tax. The schedule clearly shows that that are two distinct owners - one being 'individual' and the other being 'others'. There is no express provision anywhere in the Taxation Act which permits the authorities to collect tax at a different rate in the event the vehicle registered in the name of an individual was used for a purpose other than personal. 8.Taxation statute has to be given a literal interpretation. In case the words of a taxation statute is plain and unambiguous, it has to be interpreted to give full effect to the wording of the statute. It is not permissible for including something in the taxing statute so as to give a different meaning to a particular provision. If there is a provision for recovery of tax, Tax Collector is entitled to collect tax at the rate prescribed under the statute. In the absence of a provision, it would be impermissible to levy tax even if equity is in favour of the State. This is on account of the settled position that equity has no rule to play in a taxation statute. Therefore, there should be an express provision authorizing the authorities to collect tax and in the absence of such a provision, no tax could be collected in any circumstances. Legal Position :- 9.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 1961 SC 1047, considered the necessity to interpret the taxation statute in the light of what is clearly expressed and observed thus :- "In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed: it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statutes so as to supply any assumed deficiency. 10.In Mathuram Agrawal v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 667, the issue before the Supreme Court was regarding levy and collection of property tax in respect of buildings and while considering the said issue in the light of the decided cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the statute should clearly and unambiguously convey the three components of the tax law i.e. the subject of the tax, the person who is liable to pay the tax and the rate at which the tax is to be paid and indicated the legal position thus :- "The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the economic results sought to be obtained by making the provision which is relevant in interpreting a fiscal statute. Equally impermissible is an interpretation which does not follow from the plain, unambiguous language of the statute. Words cannot be added to or substituted so as to give a meaning to the statute which will serve the spirit and intention of the legislature. The statute should clearly and unambiguously convey the three components of the tax law i.e. the subject of the tax, the person who is liable to pay the tax and the rate at which the tax is to be paid. If there is any ambiguity regarding any of these ingredients in a taxation statute then there is no tax in law. Then it is for the legislature to do the needful in the matter." 11.In Mathuram Agrawal v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 667, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to an earlier Judgment in Bank of Chettinad Ltd. v. CIT, 1940 (8) ITR 522 (PC) and the opinion of Lord Russell as well as Lord Simonds thus :- "13.In the case of Bank of Chettinad Ltd. v. CIT the Privy Council quoted with approval the following passage from the opinion of Lord Russell of Killowen in IRC v. Duke of Westminster 1936 AC 1: "I confess that I view with disfavour the doctrine that in taxation cases the subject is to be taxed if in accordance with a court's view of what it considers the substance of the transaction, the court thinks that the case falls within the contemplation or spirit of the statute. The subject is not taxable by inference or by analogy, but only by the plain words of a statute applicable to the facts and circumstances of his case. As Lord Cairns said many years ago in Partington v. Attorney General (1869) 4 HL 100 at p.122: "As I understand the principle of all fiscal legislation, it is this; if the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown seeking to recover the tax cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however, apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be." 14.In the case of Russell (Inspector of Taxes) v. Scott (1948) 2 All Enquiry Report 1, Lord Simonds in his opinion at p.5 observed: "My Lords, there is a maxim of income tax law which, though it may sometimes be overstressed, yet ought not to be forgotten. It is that the subject is not to be taxed unless the words of the taxing statute unambiguously impose the tax on him. It is necessary that this maxim should on occasion be reasserted and this is such an occasion." 12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce & Industry v. State of A.P., 2000 (5) Supreme 389 :: (2000) 6 SCC 550 held that the taxation statute has to be strictly construed and nothing can be read into it and made the legal position thus :- "7.It is trite law that a taxing statute has to be strictly construed and nothing can be read into it. In the classic passage from Cape Brandy Syndicate which was noticed in the judgment under appeal, it was said: "In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can look fairly at the language used." This view has been reiterated by this Court time and again. Thus, in State of Bombay v. Automobile and Agricultural Industries Corpn., 1976 (4) SCC 643 this Court said: "But the courts in interpreting a taxing statute will not be justified in adding words thereto so as to make out some presumed object of the legislature. ... If the legislature has failed to clarify its meaning by the use of appropriate language, the benefit thereof must go to the taxpayer. It is settled law that in case of doubt, that interpretation of a taxing statute which is beneficial to the taxpayer must be adopted." Conclusion :- 13.The learned Single Judge was carried away by the fact that though the vehicle was registered in the individual name of the appellant, it was used only for the purpose of the driving school. It was in the said circumstances, the learned Single Judge pointed out that when the appellant used the vehicle for imparting training in his driving institute, it goes without saying that the vehicles were put to use exclusively for commercial purposes and thereby making him liable to pay tax under the category "others". However, the fact remains that there is no entry in the taxation Act for taxing such unauthorized usage of the vehicle. In the event of inserting a provision in the taxation Act making the unauthorized or different usage of the motorcycle liable for extra levy there would be no difficulty for such recovery. However, the position insofar as the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act is entirely different. There is no specific head for collection of such extra tax. In fact, the only distinction is between an individual and others on the basis of ownership. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Transport Authorities were not justified in directing the appellant to pay tax in respect of his motorcycles treating the same as commercial vehicles solely on account of the usage of the vehicles for imparting training though registered in his individual capacity. 14.In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the order dated 23.10.2003 in W.P.No.1993/1997 is set aside and consequently, the impugned Order dated 01.10.1996 on the file of the respondent is quashed. No costs.;