TRAVANCORE TEA ESTATES CO LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As pointed out by the learned single judge neither the charging section, S.3 of (Kerala), Act 24 of 1963 nor the legislative entry 57 of the State List, requires that the motor vehicles taxed should be used on public roads. The legislative entry only requires that the vehicles should be suitable for use on roads, and the charging section only that the vehicles should be used or kept for use in the State. These conditions the appellant's motor vehicles undisputedly satisfy; and even if it be that the tax is levied for the purpose of maintaining public roads, we are not for a moment saying that that need be so that would be no justification for reading into the statute words that are not there and restrict the levy to vehicles using public roads. It would, of course, be a different matter if the appellant could successfully assail the vires of the section by showing that such an unrestricted levy as the section clearly contemplates is unconstitutional; but the appellant has not even attempted to do that. On the assumption that the appellant's case regarding the nature of the levy is correct, we have no doubt that both the legislative entry and the charging section must have been advisedly worded as they are out of the awareness that it would impossible to ensure that motor vehicles suitable for use on roads would not be used on public roads.

(2.) So far as the appellant's claim for exemption under S.20 of the Act is concerned, it would appear from the impugned order, Ext. P8, that there is a separate order made by the 2nd respondent R.T.O. rejecting that claim on the merits. That separate order has not been produced and it has not been attacked.

(3.) It is said in the memorandum of appeal that subsequent to the institution of the writ petition there has been a notification under S.22 of the Act entitling the appellant to exemption. That, needless to say, must be agitated by separate proceedings.