PEERMADE TEA CO LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question agitated in these appeals is whether liability to tax under S.3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963 is attracted in these cases, where the vehicles in question are claimed to be used exclusively on the private roads in the appellant's estates. This question has been concluded against the appellants by the decision of this Court in W. A. No. 451 of 1969. On the strength of the said decision, the contention has to be found against the appellant.

(2.) The appellants sought to raise before us the contention that the levy of the tax in the circumstances and on the facts stated by them, is discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. No case of discrimination was argued before the learned single Judge and no finding was given on the question. Before us, counsel for the appellants sought to make out with reference to the notification specifying the rates of tax, issued under S.3(1) of the Act, that the levy was discriminatory. We are afraid that no sufficient foundation has been laid for this argument, on facts; and on the materials placed before us, we are unable to see any case of discrimination. What was argued before us was that the petitioners who maintained their private roads in their estates and plied their vehicles on these roads are subject to taxation under the provisions of the Act, and the notification issued thereunder, in the same way and to the same extent as those who do not have to incur any expenses for the maintenance and repair of the roads on which they ply their vehicles, where the roads are maintained by the State or by a local authority. We are unable to see how on this basis any case of discrimination can be made out. As ruled by the Division Bench in W. A. No. 451 of 1969, liability to tax is quite irrespective of whether the actual or potential user of the vehicles is on public or private roads. Under the provisions of the Act, so long as the vehicles are used or kept for use, on roads, whether public or private, liability to tax is attracted, on all alike. That being so, on the basis of the argument advanced by Counsel for the appellants, we see no case of discrimination.

(3.) We dismiss these appeals, but make no order as to costs.