9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an, 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/-. 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 ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the vehicle registered on and after 1.7.1998 was inconsistent with the section 4(1-A)(b); that prior to the amending Act 27/98, the tax was levied only on laden weight and not on the value of the vehicle which had no nexus with the use of the roads; that by introducing the "value" as an index, the tax has ceased to be compensatory and consequently, the levy fell outside entry 57 of list-II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution, which in turn attracted article 265 of the Constitution resulting in levy and collection of tax without the authority of law. Mr. A.K. Ganguly, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the concept of collection of one time tax incorporated in section 4(1-A)(a) read with schedule-III (part-I) of the 1974 Act has been upheld. In this connection, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & others v. Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya & others reported in (AIR 1988 SC 2062). It was urged that the index of "weight-cum-value" will not make the levy loose its regulatory and compensatory character. That, the mode of collection will not alter the nature of the levy under section 3 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding anything contained in sub- section (1), - (a) in respect of the motor vehicles specified in item (A) in Part-I of the Second Schedule and in Part-I of the Third Schedule, at the time of its registration, a life time tax shall be paid at the rates specified in item (A) in Part-I of the Second Schedule or in Part-I of the Third Schedule, as the case may be, on a licence to be taken out for the life time of such vehicles. (b) In respect of motor vehicles specified in item (B) in Part-I of the Second Schedule and in Part-II of the Third Schedule, the tax shall be paid either annually at the rates specified in the First Schedule or for the life time of such vehicles at the rate specified in item (B) in Part-I of the Second Schedule or in Part-II of the Third Schedule, as the case may be, on a licence to be taken out for such vehicles for that year or for the life time, as the case may be; and (bb) in respect of motor vehicles specified in Part-II of the Second Schedule, a life time tax shall be paid at the rate specified in Part-II of the Second Schedule. (c) in respect of motor vehicles specified in clauses 6 and 7 of the First Schedule, the tax shall be paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F NEW MOTOR VEHICLES Item If the value of the vehicle is not more than Rs. 5 lakhs If the value of the vehicle is more than Rs. 5 lakhs but not more than Rs. 10 lakhs If the value of the vehicle is more than Rs. 10 lakhs. Individual Others Individual Others Individual Others Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. (a) Weighing not more than 700 kgs. unladen.. 8,210 16,420 12,320 24,640 16,420 32,840 (b) Weighing more than 700 kgs. but not more than 1,500 kgs. unladen.. 10,950 21,900 16,430 32,860 21,900 43,800 (c) Weighing more than 1,500 kgs. but not more than 2,000 kgs. unladen.. 13,290 27,380 20,540 41,080 27,380 54,760 (d) Weighing more than 2,000 kgs. but not more than 3,000 kgs. unladen.. 15,060 30,120 22,590 45,180 30,120 60,240 (e) Weighing more than 3,000 kgs. unladen in respect of which private transport vehicles permit is not required under Motor Vehicles Act. 17,110 34,220 25,670 51,340 34,220 68,440 Explanation: For the purpose of this Schedule, the word "Individual" means a person known by his proper name." A bare reading of the aforestated schedule shows the introduction of "weight-cum-value" index as the basis for payment of "life ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in nature in the sense that it is imposed to meet the increasing costs of maintenance and upkeep and to that extent it is not plenary. However, as stated above, the limited question is : whether the tax ceases to be compensatory and regulatory with the introduction of "weight-cum-value" index and whether the said index is contrary to the scheme of the said 1974 Act. At the outset, it may be noted that depreciation is a function of time and maintenance. In the present case, we are concerned with the "life time tax" which is one time payment spread over the economic life of the vehicle. The said tax is based on time, use and maintenance of the roads. As stated in the judgment of this Court in Bombay Tyre (supra), any standard, which maintains a nexus with the essential character of the levy can be regarded as a valid basis for assessing the measure of the levy. Applying the said test to the present case, we hold that the index of "weight-cum-value" maintains the nexus with the essential character of the levy in question and, therefore, the High Court erred in holding that by introduction of the value of the vehicle as a parameter, the levy ceases to be regulatory and compensatory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eover, weight alone may not provide a sufficient parameter/basis for imposition of "life time tax". As an illustration, we may point out that the weight of the Honda CRV Car is 1500 kg. as against the weight of Tata Indigo GLX which weighs 1490 kg. and yet the cost of Honda CRV is Rs. 15,24,396 lacs whereas the price of Tata Indigo is 5.08,651 lacs. Hence, weight index alone may not constitute the basis of "life time tax". In the circumstances, we reiterate that introduction of "weight-cum-value" index will not make the levy non- regulatory/non-compensatory. Further, under the unamended 1974 Act, weight was the basis of the impugned levy as an annual tax. But with the introduction of a "life time tax", the entire future projection spread over the economic life of the vehicle had to be taken into account along with other factors like fall in the value of the rupee, inflation, rising costs of the material, cross subsidy etc. and consequently, it was necessary to introduce the new index of "weight-cum-value" and factors like paying capacity of the owner. In our view, these factors have nexus with the use of the roads over a period of time and hence, the impugned levy fell within entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mportant to remember the words of Lord Wilberforce, quoted with approval by House of Lords in the case of Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd. v. Mawson (Inspector of Taxes) reported in (2005) 1 All ER 97 stating that "a tax is generally imposed by reference to economic activities or transactions which exist in the real world". When an economic activity is to be valued, it is open to the law maker to take into account various factors including the paying capacity of the user, the value of the vehicle, the economic life of the vehicle etc. Lastly, in the present case, for the vehicles registered before 1.7.1998 the option between annual and one time tax is retained. Before concluding, we may quote the observations of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Anas v. State of Kerala reported in 1999 (3) KLT 147 [to which one of us, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J., was a party], which state as under:- "A taxing statute can be held to contravene Art. 14 of the Constitution only if it purports to impose on the same class of property similarly situated an incidence of taxation which leads to obvious inequality. It is for the Legislature to decide on what objects to levy wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
