SANTANU KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ applications the constitutional validity of the amended provisions of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder has been challenged.

(2.) Under the pre-amended law the owners of the vehicles were required to pay tax and obtain tax token every year which resulted in wastage of time as well as incurring extra expenditure by making journey to the Regional Transport Offices. Simultaneously with the increasing number of vehicles the work load in the offices of the Regional Transport Officers keeps increasing requiring more and more of supporting staff to attend to the work. In a meeting of the Transport Ministers held at New Delhi in April, 1986, it was suggested that payment of one time tax should be introduced in respect of personalised vehicles. In accordance with this decision and to achieve object of lessoning harassment of the vehicle owners as well as to reduce the work load in the taxing offices, Government of India advised the State Government to effect necessary amendment to the respective taxation Act and the Rules and accordingly the amendment to the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and the Rules have been made. Under the amended provisions, in respect of every vehicle of the descriptions specified in items 1 and 2 of the Schedule, which is used personally or kept for personal use, one time tax at the rate equal to ten times the annual rate of tax as specified in the Schedule has to be paid. Under S. 13, if the tax due in respect of any Motor Vehicle has not been paid as specified in Ss. 4 and 4A then penalty has to be levied in such manner as may be prescribed, Under S. 13(2) no penalty shall be imposed without giving the party concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioners' contend that this provision contained in S. 4A of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act brought by way of amendment casts an unreasonable burden on the user of the vehicle and it makes a discrimination between the user of personalised vehicles and the user of commercial vehicles and, therefore, the provisions must be struck down as being violative of Art. 14.

(3.) We do not find any substance in the aforesaid contention. The amended provision, does not, in our opinion, cast an unreasonable burden on the user of the vehicles and, on the other hand, it relieves the user from annual botheration of going to the Taxing Officer and making necessary payment and obtaining the tax taken in support of the same. Though the life of a vehicle is ordinarily much more than ten years but the legislature while introducing tax at one point felt that ten times of the annual tax would be a justifiable amount. By virtue of the amended provisions what the users would have done every year required to do only once. Neither it casts an unreasonable burden as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners nor can it be said to be discriminatory because the benefit has been conferred only to a particular category of vehicles and its users, namely, personalised vehicles. The said benefit for avowed reasons has not been conferred to the commercialised vehicles or any other vehicles used for commercial purposes. The personalised vehicles form a class by themselves as distinguished from the other category of vehicles by grouping the personalised vehicles entitled to receive the advantage and benefits of the amended provisions. Such advantages have been denied to other category of vehicles. Therefore, users of the personalised vehicles cannot claim a provision made by the legislature to their advantage to be violative of Art. 14. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions are unconstitutional. That apart in the amended provisions itself sufficient care has been taken for refund of the tax if after payment of one time tax, the vehicle is removed to any other State for transfer of ownership or change of address or its registration is cancelled as contained in Sub-Sec. (4) of S. 4-A. In the aforesaid premises, we are not in a position to hold that S. 4-A is in any manner repugnant to any of the constitutional provisions. The submission of Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners who led the argument as well as the submission of the other learned counsel for different writ petitioners in this regard cannot be sustained.