Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) These appeals relate to a common judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by which challenge to Notification issued by the State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 83, Transport, Road and Buildings (Tr.II) Department dated 5-6-2000 was rejected. By the said Notification issued under clause (b) of Section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (in short 'the Taxation Act') an earlier order dated 1-7-1995 issued by the Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr.II) Department, was cancelled. The appellants who are operators of tourist buses originating from Karnataka State (their home State) and plying in adjacent States including the State of Andhra Pradesh filed the writ petitions assailing the legality and constitutional validity of the said Notification dated 5-6-2000.
(2.) Case of the appellants as canvassed before the High Court and reiterated in this Court is essentially as follows: Vehicles of the appellants are covered by the tourist vehicles permits issued by the State Transport Authority, Karnataka under Rule 64(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules and the authorization certificates issued by the same authority under the Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist and Transport Operators) Rules, 1993 (in short 'permit rules) and also the recognition certificates issued by the Director of Tourism, Bangalore under the said Rules. By virtue of these permits and certificates, tourist vehicles of the appellants are authorized to ply in certain contiguous States including the State of Andhra Pradesh. Central Government after discussion with the State Governments and with their consents formulated policies in he matter of concessions to be extended to tourist vehicles. A Notification dated 1-7-1995 was issued pursuant to a directive of the Central Government and its withdrawal is clearly unconstitutional. Rule 1(4) of the Permit Rules makes it clear that the conditions prescribed in Rules 82 to 85A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short 'the Central Rules') do not apply to permits granted under the scheme governed by the Permit Rules. Therefore, in the garb of levying taxes on fares and freights, the directives of the Central Government are being violated and the same is impermissible. With reference to Articles 73, 256 and 257 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (for short 'the Constitution'), it is submitted that the directives of the Central Government are binding and the withdrawal Notification i.e. G.O. Ms. No. 83 dated 5th June, 2000 is clearly illegal. With reference to Entry 35 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, it was submitted that the earlier Notification was in accord with the said entry. Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') throws considerable light on the controversy and similar is the position in respect of Section 88 (14) of the Act. State Legislature has no competence to rescind or reverse the Notification conferring the benefits of concessional rate of tax to tourist operators. State law cannot go counter to the directives of Central Government on this subject. Therefore, the impugned Notification is beyond the legislative power which the State derives under Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, in view of the express language used in Entry 35 of List III and also by virtue of the mandate contained in Article 254 of the Constitution. A plea of promissory estoppel was also pressed into service. It was submitted that the withdrawal of the concessional tax is an instance of arbitrary exercise of power which is not backed by any relevant consideration. Article 256 of the Constitution obligates the State to exercise its executive power to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament. Therefore, the impugned Notification could not have been withdrawn. In any event, after the withdrawal of the Notification there was a repeal of the relevant provision and without an operative Notification, taxes cannot be charged. Lastly, it was submitted that the action is clearly violative of guarantees and protections provided by Article 301 of the Constitution. It is to be noted that except the last stand indicated above, all other stands were examined by the High Court and negatived.
(3.) It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that reliance placed by the High Court on the decision of this Court in B.A. Jayaram and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (1984) 1 SCC 168 is inappropriate as factual and legal background involved are different. In any event, some of the observations made in the said case need re-consideration in view of what has been stated by a 7-Judge Bench in The Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1963) 1 SCR 491.;