V R AYODHYA NAIDU Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is he owner of a lorry bearing registration No. MDS 2991, and he is plying it as a public goods carrier vehicle s his occupation. By this petition he seeks a rule forbidding the State of Madras, the respondent, form giving effect to the provisions of the Madras Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, Act IX of 1962. The madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931, by S. 4 (1) provides that the State government may, by notification in he official Gazette from time to time, direct that a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle using any public road in the State of Madras. But the sub-section requires the notification to specify the rates at which and the quarter from which the tax shall be levied. There is a proviso to the effect that the rates shall not exceed the maximum specified in Sch. . II. In that schedule item 2 relates to goods vehicles and sub-item 2 relates to goods vehicles and sub-item (I) rates to vehicles exceeding 150 cwt, but not exceeding 180 cwt. , in weight laden, and the maximum rate of quartile tax therefore is prescribed as rs. 427. The petitioner is paying this tax an does not complain about it. Madras act IX of 1962 amended the schedule, the main object being to enhance the maximum rate of tax. The Act came into force on 6-9-1962. But S. 2 of the amending Act provided that a notification under Sub-s. (1) of S. 4 of the main Act may be issued so as to have retrospective effect from a date not earlier that the 1st day of July 1962. On 14-9-1962, a notification was made prescribing the maximum rates to have effect from 1-7-1962. The schedule, as amended, so far as the petitioner is concerned, raises the maximum rate to Rs. 600. By item 3, sub-item (1 ). It is the difference between the old and the amended maximum rates that is under attack by the petitioner.

(2.) THE first contention for the petitioner is that the increase of the rate from Rs. 427 to Rs. 600 is so oppressive that it is destructive of his fundamental right to carry on business and, therefore, violates Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The petitioner, in support of his contention, has attached an annexure to his affidavit in which he has given the particulars of his income and of expenditure. He says that his gross income at the rate of Rs. 40 per day come to Rs. 14,600 per annum. After meeting the various items of expenses in respect of the lorry including the tax payable under S. 4 (1) of Madras Act III of 1961, he is left with a net annual income of Rs. 1,992. His complaint is that if the difference of tax between the two maxima of rates is paid, he would be left with about Rs. 1,200 per annum as net income. On these facts, he urges that the enhancement of the rate has the effect of restraining unreasonably his right to carry on business.

(3.) IT has been held by this Court and the Supreme Court that the taxing power of the Legislature is subject to constitutional limitations, including the provisions in part III of the Constitution. It will suffice to refer to the decision of the Supreme court in Khyerbari Tea Co. , Ltd. v. State of Assam, where it was observed :