Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Kanapala Rama Rao vs Regional Transport Officer, ... on 8 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(6)ALD402, 2001(6)ALT46
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. A Division Bench of this Court, having noticed divergent views taken by two Division Benches in S.V. RAMANAMMA v ASST. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, 1989 (1) ALT 220 and in SMT. SK. MUMTAZ BEGUM v REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER-CUM-LICENSING OFFICER, NELLORE, 1989 (2) LS 250, as regards the liability of a transport operator who has violated the conditions of a stage carriage permit, has referred these matters to this Bench for resolution of the controversy.
2. The petitioners' vehicles, which are having stage carriage permits on the town service route - Amudalavalasa Bus Stand to Srikakulam (Day and Night Hospital Junction) were found plying on the routes not authorised by the permits within the town. After the check, the petitioners were issued show-cause notices calling upon them to explain as to why the difference of tax should not be collected for the quarter to which they submitted their explanations. Thereafter, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Palakonda has issued the impugned demand notices dated 4.10.1999 purported to be in terms of Item 4(v)(B)(v) of the Notification issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.75, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr.II) dated 27.4.1993 read with Explanation-II and Explanation III (ii) thereunder and also read with G.O.Ms.No.220 T.R & B dated 7.11.1996 demanding difference of tax of Rs.8,484/-, Rs.12,650 and Rs.12,650/- respectively from the petitioners calculated at the maximum rate of Rs.790/- per seat per quarter treating them vehicles plying as stage carriages on the routes other than town service routes.
3. According to the petitioners, the deviation, if any, is only within the town route and, therefore, it does not attract levy of additional tax as held in Sk. Mumtaz Begum's case. The maximum tax that is liable to be paid in respect of town service for a vehicle having a town service permit as per Item 4(iv)(b) is only Rs.550/- whereas the petitioners paid @ RS.515/- and if at all any tax is due, only the difference has to be collected. It was also contended that since the offences were already compounded under Rule 217 A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the question of payment of any difference of tax does not arise. The deviation, if any, is within the town limit and hence the levy of tax at the maximum rate of Rs.790/-applicable to moffusil service route is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in M. NARASIMHAIAH v DY. COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT, BANGALORE, .
4. In the counter filed by the respondents, it was stated that the vehicles were found plying on unauthorized route in violation of the conditions of permit at the time of check and hence tax is to be realised at the maximum rate of stage carriage as per the explanation III (ii), of G.O.Ms.No.220 dated 7.11.1996. The decision in Mumtaz Begum's case has no application to the present cases as in the said case the vehicle was found plying within the two terminuses deviating the route in town limits due to obstruction to reach the destination. In the present cases, the vehicles were plying beyond the termini point ie Srikakulam Day & Night Hospital Junction to Old Bus Stand. This Court in S.V. Ramanamma's case clearly held that the liability to pay the maximum rate of tax attaches itself to the vehicle, the moment it plies on a route other than the one authorized by the permit or without obtaining any permit. The decision of the Apex Court in Narasimhaiah's case has also no application as in the said case; the Apex Court was dealing with the issue of levy of additional tax for carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity.
5. Section 3 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 empowers the State Government to levy tax on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in a public place in the State. The charging section 3 of the Act empowers the State Government to levy tax on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in a public place in the State. Tn terms of sub-section (2) of Section 3, a notification issued under sub-section (1) would specify the class of motor vehicles on which, the rates for the periods to which and the date from which, the tax shall be levied. The first proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides that the rates of tax shall not exceed the maximum specified in Column (2) of the First Schedule in respect of the classes of motor vehicles fitted with pneumatic tyres specified in the corresponding entry in Column (1) thereof. Section 4 provides for payment of tax and grant of licence. Section 6 provides for penalty for failure to pay tax. Section 8 provides for seizure and detention of the motor vehicles in case of non-payment of tax. Section 9 provides for exemption, reduction or other modification of tax. Section 12 provides for an appeal from an order of levy made under Section 6 or seizure made under Section 8.
6. The State in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3 of the said Act as amended by Act 11 of 1992 prescribing the maximum quarterly tax leviable on various classes of motor vehicles and in supersession of all the Notifications issued on the subject, issued G.O.Ms.No.75 Transport R & B (Tr.II) dated 27.4.1993 directing that tax for a quarter shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in a public place in the State, at the rates specified in Column (2) of the Schedule issued thereunder in respect of the classes of motor vehicles specified in Column (1) thereof. It appears that subsequently Govt. issued G.O.Ms.No.220 dated 7.11.1996 modifying rates of taxes in respect of certain items. Item 4 of the said Schedule deals with motor vehicles plying for hire and used for transport of passengers. Items, 4(iv)(b) and 4(v)(B) reads as follows:
S. No. Class of Motor Vehicle Rate of quarterly tax For motor vehicles fitted with pneumatic Tyres XXXX XXXX 4(iv) Vehicles permitted to carry more than 6 passengers and plying as stage carriages on tawn service routes.
(a) XXX
(b) In rasped of vehicles permitted to ply as ordinary services for every passenger (other than the driver and conductor) which the vehicle is permitted to carry and where the total distance permitted to be covered by the vehicle in a day :
(a) does not exceed 100 kms.
275-00
(b) exceeds 100 kms. but does not exceed 160 kms 410-00
(c) exceeds 160 kms. but does not exceed 240 kms.
515-00
(d) exceeds 240 kms.
550-00 4(v) Vehicles permitted to carry mars than six passengers and plying as stage carriage on the routes other than two service roules.
(A) X XXX (B) In respect of vehicles permitted to ply as ordinary services, for every passenger (other than the driver and conductor) which the vehicle is permitted to carry and where the total distance permitted to be covered by the vehicle in a day
(i) does not exceed 100 kms, 345-00
(ii) exceeds 100 kms. but does not exceed 160 kms.
485-00
(iii) exceeds 160 kms. but does not exceed 240 kms.
620-00
(iv) exceeds 240 kms. but does not exceed 320 kms.
725-00
(v) exceeds 320 kms.
790-00 Explanations II and in under the schedule reads as follows :
Explanation: II: (j) For the purpose of Item 4(iv) a 'town service' shall mean a route described under Rule 258(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and determined as such by the Transport Authority.
(ii) For the purpose of item 4(iv)(a) an "Express Service" shall mean a service on a town service route as described under Rue 258 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and permitted to ply with limited halts as prescribed by the Transport Authority.
(iii) For the purpose of Item 4(vXA) an 'Express Service" shall have meaning of express stage carriages defined ' under Rule 2(b) of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
Explanation III: The distance permitted to be covered by a vehicle in a day shall-
(i) in the case of a motor vehicle in respect of which a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 be the distance authorized to be covered according to the permits; and
(ii) in the case of a motor vehicle plying without a permit granted under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 be reckoned, as above 320 Kms.
7. From the above schedule, it is clear that vehicles permitted to carry more than six passengers and plying as ordinary stage carriages on town service routes is covered by Item 4(iv)(b) and the maximum tax payable thereof is Rs.550/- per seat. Item 4(v)(B) deals with vehicles permitted to ply as ordinary stage carriage permits on the routes other than town service routes and the maximum tax leviable per seat for every quarter is RS.790/-. Explanation III (ii) under the schedule provides that in the case of a motor vehicle plying without a permit granted under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the distance permitted to be covered by a vehicle in a day shall be treated as above 320 kms. The transport authorities having found that petitioners' vehicles were plying on the routes not authorised by the permits, treated the vehicles as plying on the routes other than town service routes under 4(iv)(v)(B) read with Clause (ii) of Explanation-III and accordingly levied maximum tax of Rs.790/- per seat per quarter.
8. It is not in dispute that the vehicle of the petitioner plies in a town service route. It is also not in dispute that the impugned levy has been made in terms of Clause (ii) of Explanation III of the notification issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.75 dated 27.4.1994 read with G.O. Ms. No.220 dated 7.11.1996 at the maximum rate applicable to a stage carriage permit.
9. The scheme, purport and object of the Act clearly suggests that the levy can be only on the basis of Class of motor vehicles as indicated in the schedule referred to above. Column (2) of the schedule mentions the rate of quarterly tax for motor vehicles fitted with peumatic tyres. Sl.No.4 of the schedule refers to motor vehicles plying for hire and used for transport of passengers. What would be the quantum of tax in relation to different types of vehicles permitted to carry persons has been clearly specified in the schedule. In S. SUNDARAM V V.R. PATTABHIRAMAN, , the Apex Court explained the purposes of the 'Explanation' as under:
It is now well settled that an Explanation added to a statutory provision is not a substantive provision in any sense of the term but as the plain meaning of the word itself shows it is merely meant to explain or clarify certain ambiguities, which may have crept in the statutory provision.
It was explained:
Thus, from a conspectus of the authorities referred to above, it is manifest that the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision is-
(a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself
(b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve,
(c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful, .(d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, and
(f) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same."
10. Reference in this connection may also be made to the following from the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh.
An Explanation is at times appended to a section to explain the meaning of words contained in the section. It becomes a part and parcel of the enactment. The meaning to be given to an explanation must depend upon its terms and no theory of its purpose can be entertained unless it is to be inferred from the language used. But the language of Explanation shows a purpose and a construction consistent with that purpose can be reasonably placed upon it, that construction will be preferred as against any other construction, which does not fit in with the description of the avowed purpose.
11. Tax can be levied in respect of a motor vehicle which has a permit and which doesn't have a permit. It is not in dispute that the vehicle of the petitioner was having a town service stage carriage permit. Only because a deviation has been made in the route for a day for one reason or the other would not make the vehicle as having plied without any permit whatsoever. If there has been violation of conditions of permit granted to a transporter in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the same would attract the penal provisions. By reason thereof, in our considered opinion, no extra tax can be levied.
12. Explanation III as noticed hereinbefore provides for levy of tax in relation to two classes of vehicles; vehicles having permit and vehicles not having any permit. Only because there is violation of the conditions of permit, thereby a vehicle having a permit cannot be held to be liable to pay tax on par with a vehicle plying without any permit. Such approach, in our opinion, is not countenanced under the Act.
13. In S.V. RAMANAMMA V. ASST. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER (supra), Chowdary, J, speaking for the Bench held:
Under Section 3 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 very motor vehicle used or kept for use in a public place in the State is liable to pay motor vehicle tax. According to the notification in G.O.Ms.No.460, dated 30th September, 1983 and more particularly under paragraph 3 of that G.O. a motor vehicle plying without a permit granted under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; should be reckoned as travelling above 320 Kms per day and should be levied tax accordingly. It is on that basis that tax is levied in the present case. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his vehicle is not plying without a permit. This argument raises the question as to the meaning to be given to the words vehicle plying without a permit. Every motor vehicle plying on a particular route requires a permit to traverse that route. If the route which has been traversed by such a vehicle is not a route for which the vehicle holds, permit it cannot be said with any semblance of reason that it is a vehicle plying on a route with a permit. If it is plying on a route with a permit the question of paying tax again does not arise at all. The scheme under the Act is that any vehicle which is kept in a public place for use is liable to be taxed and any such vehicle which is plying without a permit granted by the authorities should be taxed at the maximum rate. The liability to pay the maximum rate of tax attaches itself to the vehicle the moment it plys on a route other than the one authorised by the permit or without obtaining any permit at all. The purpose of G.O.Ms. No.460 dated 30th September, 1983 would be defeated by accepting the argument of tire guilty parly.
14. Unfortunately, the purport and object of Explanation III had not been placed before the Bench nor the scheme of the Taxation Act had been taken into consideration.
15. In SMT.SHAIK MUMTAZ BEGUM V. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER-CUM-LICENSING OFFICER, NELORE (supra) which was delivered on 21.7.1989 i.e., after the Judgment in S.V. RAMANAMMA's case (delivered on 19.4.1988), having regard to Rule 282 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act, it was held:
Thus, so long as stage carriage permit is granted on a route which is determined as a town service route by the Road Transport Authority, the authorities under the Taxation Act wilt have to accept that determination as final and levy tax only as town service routes. They have no jurisdiction to go into the question whether it is a town service route or not, so long as the determination under Rule 282 subsists. The mere fact that a vehicle deviated from the permitted route (which is within the town) cannot empower the taxation authorities to levy any tax treating it as a muffasil or other route. It is not in controversy that the routs over which the petitioners are holding permit have been determined as town service routs. The taxation authorities will, therefore, have to levy tax only treating them as town service routes so long as the determination is subsisting. They do not have any authority to change the determination of a town service.
16. We may, however, state that even assuming that there exists a doubt, the same should be interpreted in favour of the subject and against the revenue as held in FEDERATION OF A.P. CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY V. STATE OF A.P., , wherein it was held:
It is trite law that a taxing statute has to be strictly construed and nothing can be read into it. In the classic passage from Cape Brandy Syndicate (1921) 1 KB 64, 71 which was noticed in the Judgement under appeal, it was said:
In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can look fairly at the language used."
This view has been reiterated by this Court time and again. Thus, in STATE OF BOMBAY V. AUTOMOBILE AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES CORPR, (1961) 12 STC 122 (SC), this court said:
But the Courts in interpreting a taxing statute will not be justified in adding words thereto so as to make out some presumed object of the legislature...If the legislature has failed to clarify its meaning by the use of appropriate language, the benefit thereof must go to the taxpayer. It is settled law that in case of doubt, that interpretation of a taxing statute which is beneficial to the taxpayer must be adopted.
17. Having regard to the discussion made hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the decision in SMT. SK. MUMTAZ BEGUM V. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER-CUM-LICENSING OFFICER, NELLORE lays down the correct law and the decision in S.V. RAMANAMMA V. ASST. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER is overruled accordingly.
18. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petitions are allowed and the demand notices are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.