Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7398 of 2000
PETITIONER:
Mohan Das N. Hegde (dead)through LRs.
RESPONDENT:
State of Karnataka & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/2005
BENCH:
S.N. VARIAVA,Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & S.H. KAPADIA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
KAPADIA, J.
This civil appeal by grant of special leave is filed by
assessee against the judgment and order dated 23.2.2000 of the
Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.7000 of 1999
upholding the constitutional validity of Karnataka Motor
Vehicle Taxation (Amendment) Act, 8 of 1997 (hereinafter
referred to as "the said 1997 Act").
The appellant was the owner of "Opel Astra" which was
taxed on "value basis" under the impugned 1997 Act. The said
1997 Act was challenged on the ground that the levy of "life
time tax" on the value of the car exceeding 1500 CC was
arbitrary, discriminatory and hit by article 14 of the
Constitution.
By order dated 29.6.1999, the learned Single Judge held
that the vehicle costing Rs.6 lacs and above constituted a
different class by itself and, therefore, levy cannot be said to be
discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant herein
carried the matter in appeal to the Division Bench, which,
while upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge,
dismissed the writ appeal. Hence, this civil appeal.
Mrs. Kiran Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant submitted that the impugned 1997 Act, as
amended, violated article 14 inasmuch as the said Act has made
an unreasonable classification between the vehicles costing
more than Rs.6 lacs and vehicles costing less than Rs.6 lacs.
Learned counsel further contended that the motor vehicle taxes
are compensatory in nature. Such taxes, according to the
learned counsel, can only be levied on the basis of the capacity
of the engine, the weight of the vehicle and the floor area, as
such parameters have nexus with the user and maintenance of
the road. Learned counsel submitted that by the introduction of
one more parameter, namely, the "value" of the vehicle, the
impugned levy has ceased to be regulatory/compensatory in
nature, as such a parameter has no nexus with the wear and tear
of the public road. In the circumstances, it was urged that the
impugned Act was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
article 14 of the Constitution.
We do not find any merit in the above arguments. The
above classification indicates a measure or a rate of tax applied
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
differently on different vehicles depending upon various
circumstances and so long as there is competence to levy and
collect the tax under Entry 57 List-II of the seventh schedule to
the Constitution, the levy cannot be struck down only on the
ground that the incidence of the tax falls differently on different
categories of the vehicles. The burden has to be distributed on
different classes of vehicles or on different persons who owned
the vehicles. How equitable such tax could fall on different
persons is not for the Court to decide. Lastly, this matter is
squarely covered by our judgment delivered today in the case of
The State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Krishnappan & Another Etc.
[Civil Appeal Nos.1869-1880 OF 2000].
For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any infirmity
in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, the
appeal fails and is dismissed, with no orders as to costs.