R T O IDUKKI Vs. PHILIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals arise out of two writ petitions disposed of by a common judgment by a learned Judge of this court. The petitioners in the two writ petitions attacked the notices of demand calling upon them to pay arrears of tax due from them under the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1963. The constitutional validity of the Act was attacked on the ground that the vehicles in question were used for transporting of goods only across the private roads of the petitioners within their factory or tea estate and therefore liability to tax was not attracted. This was the only point that was raised and was argued before the learned Judge as seen from his judgment. The learned Judge upheld the contentions thus raised and was of opinion that under the constitutional entry under which the Taxation of Passengers and Goods Act was passed and also under the provisions of the Act the levy of tax can be attracted only if the vehicle is used for transport of goods or passengers on public roads, and not, if they are used on private roads. The learned Judge referred in support of his reasoning and conclusion to the judgment of the Assam High Court in H. P. Baruva v. State of Assam (AIR 1955 Assam 249). The decision of this Court in Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. State ( 1972 KLT 760 ) and Peermade Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala ( 1972 KLT 848 ) were also referred to by the learned Judge; but the learned Judge was not apparently prepared to follow the principle of the decisions as they were concerned with the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1963, a different statute altogether.

(2.) We are unable to endorse the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Judge. We may refer to entries 56 and 57 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution.

(3.) We cannot accept the principle of the judgment of the Assam High Court in M.P. Baruva's case (AIR 1955 Assam 249). The said decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 232 . Besides, as already noticed the two Division Bench rulings of this Court are against the view taken by the Assam High Court and by the learned Single Judge.