VENKATA RAO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Single Judge. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxat ion (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 (Ordinance 2 of 1993) on various grounds. By virtue of the said ordinance, S. 4 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 has been amended, and a new fourth proviso is substituted, which reads as follows: "provided also that a registered owner or person having possession or control of a motor cycle (including motor scooter and cycle with attachment for propelling the- same by mechanical power) or a new three wheeler shall pay the tax payable in respect of that vehicle in advance for a period of 5 years in lumpsum upon a licence for such period, and in respect of a three wheeler other than the new three wheeler and in respect of a motorcar as. Specified in serial No. 6a of the Schedule, such payment of tax shall be for a period of two years upon a licence for such period provided however that he may, at his Choice pay the tax in advance in respect of a motor cycle or new three wheeler for a period of 10 years or 15 years and in respect of a three wheeler other than a new three wheeler, for a period of 5 years or 10 years or 15 years, in lumpsum upon a licence for such period. "

(2.) IN the second proviso to S. 4 for the words' motor vehicle' the words 'a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle (including motor, scooter and cycle with attachment for propelling the same by mechanical power)or a three wheeler including "cw three wheeler or a motor car as specified in item 6a of the Schedule' were substituted. A further amendment is made by describing the existing Explanation as Explanation 1 and in the Explanation as so numbered for the words 'the tax for an annual licence shall not exceed four times', the words the tax for an annual license shall not exceed four times, tax for two years, license shall not exceed eight times' were substituted. After the said Explanation 1, another Explanation was added as Explanation 2 stating that for the purposes of this sub-section', a new three wheeler' means a three wheeler specified in item 2 of the Schedule which is first registered in the State on or after the commencement of this Ordinance". Consequential amendments are made in S. 6 of the Act.

(3.) THE party-in-person raised a contention before us that the tax is unreasonable inasmuch as it imposes a burden on the tax-payer presently for paying tax for 5 years/ two years in advance. In our view, when the collection of tax even for 15 years in advance has been upheld by the supreme Court in the above said decision, the collection of tax in advance for five years in respect of certain vehicles and for two years in respect of certain other vehicles cannot be said to be unreasonable. Even otherwise, having regard to the amount involved, we do not consider it in any manner unreasonable, particularly having regard to the fact that once the advance tax is paid, the tax-payer's burden for the future is, to that extent, reduced. So far as the State is concerned, the State is saving by way of administrative expenses involved in the collection of tax periodically. Further, the collection of tax in advance in lumpsum -would enable the State to expend a larger amount in respect of immediate schemes where large amount of capital out-lay is involved, such schemes being for the benefit of the road users. We, therefore, hold that the levy of tax cannot be said to be unreasonable.