TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tegory of vehicles shown in Schedule-I. Clause (iv)(d)(i)(ii)(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991. 3. The State Legislature enacted an Act called the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam. 1991 (Act No. 25 of 1991), as amended by Act No. 26 of 1991, which received the assent of the Governor on 21st September, 1991 and published in the M.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 27th November, 1991. The Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Rules, 1991 were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 24 of the Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 and on 11th October, 1992 the Rules were amended. The Adhiniyam was brought into force to consolidate and amend the law relating to levy of tax on the motor vehicle in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Adhiniyam of 1991 was challenged in this Court by filing writ petitions by various transport operators; one of them was registered as Misc. Petition No. 39 of 1992 and this Court by order dated 1-10-1992 upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1991, by rejecting the challenge on the ground of lack of legislative competence and violation of Articles 301 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Katuria v. State of M.P. and others. On 15th December, 1992, a proclamation was issued by the President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, whereunder the powers of the State Legislature of Madhya Pradesh have been declared to be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament. On proclamation of the declaration under Article 356 of the Constitution, the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan (Sanshodhan) Adhyadesh, 1992 has ceased to have any effect, and, therefore, the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan (Amendment) Ordinance. 1993 (Act No. 20 of 1993) was promulgated by the President of India on 30th January, 1993 and published in the M.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated January 30, 1993. This Ordinance, promulgated by the President of India, was under challenge in the present petitions. Thereafter, the Madhya Pradesh State Legislature (Delegation of Power) Act, 1993 (Act No. 9 of 1993) has received the assent of the President on 31st March, 1993 and was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 31-3-1993. During the pendency of the petitions, the President of India in exercise of the power under Section 3 of the M.P. State Legislature (Delegation of Power) Act, 1993, en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15th day of December. 1992 under Article 356 of the Constitution of India by the President. By this Act the power of the Legislature of the State of Madhya Pradesh to make laws which has been declared by the proclamation to be exercisable by or under the authority of the Parliament has been conferred on the President. Delegation of Powers Act. 1993 provides that in exercise of the said power, i.e. power to make laws, the President shall, whenever he considers it practicable to do so, consult a committee constituted for the purpose, consisting of 20 members of the House of People nominated by the Speaker and 10 members of the Council of States nominated by the Chairman. Further, every enactment so made by the President, shall, as soon as may be after enactment, be placed before each House of Parliament. Thus, under Act No. 9 of 1993 the powers of the Legislature of the State of M.P. to make laws were delegated to the President of India. The condition that the President shall whenever he considers it practicable to do so, consult the committee before enactment of any Act is subject to the satisfaction of the President. The President is not obliged to record reasons for his satisfacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a particular law; it is in fact and reason the question of powers of the Legislature to make the law, i.e. the Legislative competence to enact a particular law. In T. Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1985 SC 724. Para 14, the Supreme Court has held: It is a settled rule of constitutional law that the question whether a statute is constitutional or not is always a question of power of the Legislature concerned, dependent upon the subject matter of the statute, the manner in which it is accomplished and the mode of enacting it. While the Courts can declare a statute unconstitutional when it transgresses constitutional limits, they are precluded from inquiring into the propriety of the exercise of the legislative power. It has to be assumed that the legislative discretion is properly exercised. The motive of the Legislature in passing a statute is beyond the scrutiny of Courts. Nor can the Courts examine whether the Legislature had applied its mind to the provisions of a statute before passing it. The propriety, expediency and necessity of a legislative act are for the determination of the legislative authority and not for determination by the Courts. The Supreme Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be conferred on the President by the Parliament. There is nothing in this Article which could be read to curtail the authority of Parliament to confer powers to enact law of the State Legislature only when Parliament is not in session. This article does not even remotely support the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that conferral of powers by Parliament to the President for enacting laws can only be for the period when the Parliament is not in session. It is a golden rule of construction of statutes that when the words are clear, plain and unambiguous and susceptible to only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning only. The conferral of powers by Parliament to the President to legislate laws is authorised by the Constitution and, therefore, cannot be challenged on the grounds abdication of legislative powers in favour of an outside authority. Article 357(1)(a) itself is a complete answer to the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 9. It was next contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the impugned Presidential Act No. 10 of 1993 has not provided a machinery for assessment of tax, inasmuch as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be, the Taxation Authority shall, after making such enquiry as it deems fit and after giving to the owner an opportunity of being heard, determine, by an order in writing, the tax payable by the owner and intimate the same to him in such form and within such time as may be prescribed. (4) Where the owner fails to file a declaration required under Sub-section (1) or (2) the Taxation Authority may, on the basis of information available with it and after giving to the owner an opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing, determine the amount of tax payable by such owner suo motu and intimate the same to him in such form and within such time as may be prescribed. (5) On determination of the tax payable under Sub-section (3) or (4), as the case may be, by the Taxation Authority, the difference of the amount of tax payable and the amount of tax paid shall, as the case may be, be paid by or refunded to the owner in a manner applicable to the payment or refund of tax under this Act and rules. (6) Where the owner files a false declaration, the taxation authority shall, after giving the owner an opportunity of being heard, by an order in writing, impose a penalty not exceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passengers for which permit is granted by the transport authorities. Under explanation 1 (i) the Motor Vehicle for which permit is granted the number of passengers will be as authorised in the permit. Thus, the liability for payment of tax is dependent on the permit issued of the vehicle owned and possessed by the owner and not on the basis of passengers carried in the vehicle on a particular day. Of course, there is difference of tax liability depending on the type of vehicle, viz. air conditioned, deluxe services express service or ordinary service and on the basis of the distance permitted to ply under the permit, which is known to the owner of the vehicle to whom permit has been issued by the transport authorities and can easily be calculated for the purpose of submission of declaration as required under Section 8(1) of Act No. 10 of 1992. Therefore, for the purpose of filing the declaration, the owner of the vehicle can make self assessment of his tax liability. It cannot be said that there are no guidelines provided for filing of declaration by the owner of vehicles. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 gives opportunity to the Petitioners to submit additional declaration when the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riage permit, granted in respect of a route which remains non-motorable partly during rainy season, contains a condition to the effect that during the period specified therein the permit shall be valid only for the specified part route, then the tax payable in respect of the vehicle covered by such permit during such specified period shall be calculated in a slab worked out after excluding the non-motorable part-route. (2) If a stage carriage permit has been granted in respect of a route, a part of which remains non-motorable during rainy season and the permit does not contain any condition governing the part route operations, then the procedure contained in Rule 13 shall, in so far as may be applicable, apply for intimating the non-operation of vehicle on the non-motorable part route. Under this Rule a procedure has been laid down for intimation of the non-user of the permit on the part of the route. Rule 12 gives procedure for intimation of non-use of permit on account of mechanical breakdown due to accident or otherwise, or repair and maintenance of the vehicle: non-motorability of route due to rains or otherwise; or non-operation on account of an order of any Court, Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill defeat the intention of the Legislature even though there may be some ambiguity in the language used. In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (1962) Supp. (2) SCR 769 at page 809, the Supreme Court has held that: It is well settled that in interpreting an enactment the Court should have regard not merely to the literal meaning of the words used, but also take into consideration the antecedent history of the legislation, its purpose and the mischief it seeks to suppress. In this context the Amending Act No. 10 of 1993 was enacted to amend the Principal Act of 1991 in accordance with the directions issued by this Court to make the statute workable as regards to the assessment of tax liability. The Act No. 10 of 1993 was enacted to suppress the mischief and to make the statute workable, the principal Act of 1991 with the Rules framed thereunder are held to be valid in Misc. Petition No. 39 of 1992 by a Division Bench of this Court, except the provision of assessment of tax . The Amending Act No. 10 of 1993 is directed towards achieving this objective by enacting provisions for providing adequate machinery for assessment of tax. The expression 'after making such inquiry as de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s application for refund after hearing them and refund of extra tax paid. The Taxation Authority is bound to consider all material placed by the owners of the vehicle regarding their tax liability before passing of the assessment order and order for refund. Provisions of Sections 8 and 14 in particular and the Rules 12, 13, 13-A and 14 provide reasonable protection and safeguards of the interest of the Petitioners/owners against any arbitrary action by the authority in the assessment and refund of tax. Besides this, Section 20 of the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam read with Rule 18 provides for an appeal against the order of assessment which is an additional safeguard to the owners of the vehicle regarding payment of tax. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the provisions of the Presidential Amending Act No. 10 of 1993 are intra vires and do not suffer from any constitutional illegality or infirmity. The Amending Act provides for assessment of the Petitioners/owners' tax liability on their vehicles under the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 by the taxing officer. Consequently all the petitions are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee ₹ 250/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
