Skip to content


Secretary to Government of Home Department, Tamil Nadu, and ors. Etc. Vs. Salem Iharmapuri Cuni Bus Association and ors., Etc. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeals Nos. 1405-1409 of 1971
Reported in(1975)4CTR(SC)24
AppellantSecretary to Government of Home Department, Tamil Nadu, and ors. Etc.
RespondentSalem Iharmapuri Cuni Bus Association and ors., Etc.
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)sections 173, 166 & 149: [dr.arijit pasayat & a.k.ganguly,jj] liability of insurance company contributory negligence - no finding on the effect of non-joinder of owner and the insurer of the vehicle involved in the original claim in the order of high court matter remitted back to high court for fresh consideration. - 4. the high court was clearly wrong in declaring that the tax imposed by the two notifications was not an exercise of the power to tax......with which that power has been exercised is quite immaterial. section 17 gives power to the state government to amend schedule ii or iii by rules. a draft of any rule has to be laid on the table of the legislative assembly and the rule shall not be made unless the assembly approves the draft. neither the draft of the rule approved by the assembly nor the rule as framed by government contained the purpose of imposing a higher tax on contract carriages. it was only when the rule was published that the purpose of imposing the tax viz., to eliminate the unhealthy competition from contract carriages, was added. if the tax was otherwise legal, it would not become illegal merely because it was intended to be used also as an instrument to regulate to regulate an activity within the power.....
Judgment:

Mathew, J. - The only point in these appeals is whether the High Court was right in striking down the two G. Os., namely, G.O.M.S. 923 - Home dated 19-4-1969 and G.O.M.S. 434 - Home dated 27-2-1970 for the reason that the levy of tax under the G.Os. was not an exercise of the power of taxation but was a measure for eliminating competition of the permit-holders of contract carriages.

2. We have already indicated in our judgment in G.K. Krishnan, etc. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, etc. etc. that if the Government has power to impose the tax, the motive or the purpose with which that power has been exercised is quite immaterial. Section 17 gives power to the State Government to amend Schedule II or III by rules. A draft of any rule has to be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly and the rule shall not be made unless the Assembly approves the draft. Neither the draft of the rule approved by the Assembly nor the rule as framed by Government contained the purpose of imposing a higher tax on contract carriages. It was only when the rule was published that the purpose of imposing the tax viz., to eliminate the unhealthy competition from contract carriages, was added. If the tax was otherwise legal, it would not become illegal merely because it was intended to be used also as an instrument to regulate to regulate an activity within the power of the state.

3. We have already held in our judgment referred to in the proceeding paragraph that the tax imposed on contract carriages by Notification No. 2044 - Home dated 20.9.1971 is compensatory in character and, therefore, the Government, in the exercise of its delegated power was competent to impose the same without, in any way, restricting the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. If that be so, we see no reason to hold that the tax imposed by the two notifications in question is not compensatory in character and it was not contended otherwise before the High Court or here.

4. The High Court was clearly wrong in declaring that the tax imposed by the two notifications was not an exercise of the power to tax. The Judgment of the High Court in these appeals is set aside and the appeals allowed but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //