KAPADIA, J. - (1.) THE question which arises for determination in these civil appeals is whether "life time tax" leviable in lump sum in advance for the life time of a motor vehicle (four wheeler) on the basis of the index of "weight-cum-value" ceases to be compensatory in nature as held by the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 11.11.1999 in writ petition nos.11815, 15139 and others of 1999.
(2.) AT the outset, it may be stated that the impugned judgment covers twelve writ petitions filed in the Madras High Court, all of them seeking to challenge Section 4(1-A)(a) read with Part-l Schedule-IlI to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1974 Act"), as amended. For the sake of convenience, we may mention the facts of the case in writ petition no. 15139 of 1998. M. Krishnappan, respondent herein challenged the provisions of Section 4(1-A)(a) imposing life time tax on motor vehicles to be registered on and after 1.7.1998 being the date on which the amending Act 27 of 1998 came into force. By the said amending Act, Section 3A as also the aforestated Section 4(1-A) (a)(b) came to be inserted in the said 1974 Act by which a dichotomy was created between the vehicles registered prior to 1.7.1998 (old vehicles) and the vehicles registered thereafter (new vehicles). In respect of the old vehicles, an option was given either to pay one time tax or an annual tax, but in the case of new vehicles no such option was provided for and consequently, it became compulsory to pay one time tax on and after 1.7.1998. At this stage, it may be stated that the respondent herein, M. Krishnappan, had purchased, on 23.9.1998, a passenger car "Tata Sumo", on payment of Rs. 5,25,451/-, the unladen weight of which was 1700 kg. on which he was charged a one time tax of Rs.20,540/-.
(3.) THE impost was accordingly challenged as unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, besides being inconsistent with the scheme of the 1974 Act. THE main thrust of the challenge was that the levy of motor vehicle tax was compensatory in nature for the use of public road; that the wear and tear of such roads maintained by the State had relevance to the unladen weight of the vehicles and not to the value of the vehicle specified in part-l of the third schedule; that the value of the vehicle cannot constitute the basis for fixing the life time tax and that such value had no relevance with the maintenance of the roads and consequently the levy was arbitrary and unreasonable. THE other incidental contentions were : that by insertion of Section 4(1-A)(a) read with Part-I of Schedule-Ill to the Act, an inconsistency stood introduced in the said 1974 Act, as the pre-amended Act was based on the laden weight of the vehicle; that the said parameter continued to apply for vehicles registered before 1.7.1998; that the new index of "weight-cum-value" was made applicable only to new vehicles; that the said index had no relevance to the use and maintenance of the road; that the differentia between old and new vehicles had no nexus with the wear and tear of the roads; that there was no difference between the two types of vehicles in terms of user of the roads; and that, the State Legislature had committed a grave blunder in introducing Section 4(1-A)(a) making it compulsory for the registered owners of the new motor vehicles to pay one time tax resulting in an unwarranted and unjustified increase in the payment of tax. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, the levy was sought to be justified on the ground that w.e.f. 1.4.1989, two-wheelers (non-transport) vehicles were made to pay "life time" tax at the time of its registration by inserting an amendment to Section 4 of the Act, as Section 4(1-A).;