Holding

There is no inconsistency between the Taxation Act and the Municipalities Act; consequently, Cantonment Boards are empowered to levy entry tax on motor vehicles under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act.

Summary

The Cantonment Boards of Saugor, Mhow and Jabalpur imposed an entry tax on motor vehicles under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The Madhya Pradesh High Court struck down the tax, holding that Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 barred any local authority from levying such a tax. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the later Municipalities Act, 1961, which authorises entry tax on vehicles, conflicted with the earlier special Taxation Act. The Court found no repugnancy because the Taxation Act does not provide for entry tax, while the Municipalities Act does, and the principle that a general law does not derogate from a special law applied. Consequently, the doctrine of implied repeal was held inapplicable. The Court also rejected the arguments of desuetude and the interpretation that "vehicle" excluded motor vehicles. The appeals were allowed, confirming that the Cantonment Boards may levy entry tax on motor vehicles entering the cantonment area under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act.

Issues considered

Whether Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 bars Cantonment Boards from levying entry tax on motor vehicles.
Whether there is repugnancy between the Taxation Act and the Municipalities Act, 1961 regarding entry tax on vehicles.
Whether the doctrine of implied repeal applies to the later Municipalities Act in relation to the earlier special Taxation Act.
Whether the principle of generalia specialibus derogant prevents the general Municipalities Act from overriding the special Taxation Act.
Whether the doctrine of desuetude can be invoked to invalidate the provisions of the Taxation Act.

Legislation cited

Cantonments Act, 1924s. 60
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 6
Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961s. 127(1)(iii)

Subjects

entry taxmotor vehiclescantonment boardmunicipal taximplied repealrepugnancystatutory interpretationgeneralia specialibus derogantdesuetudetaxation law

Judgment

CANTONMENT BOARD, MHOW AND ANR. A
v.
M.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.

APRIL 10, 1997

[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947/Madhya Pradesh
Mu11icipalities Act, 1961/Ca11to11111ents Act, 1924-Section 6(1 )!Section
127( 1)(iii )!Section 60( 1}-Authmity to levy e11t1y tax on motor vehicles--Taxa-
tion Act 1947 providing for lei)' of tax on motor vehicles which is used or kept c
for use-Municipalities Act, 1961 providing for levy of tax on entry of motor
vehicles-Held, there is no inconsistency or repugnancy between the two
provisions as both operate i11 differe11t fields and thus Cantonment Boards
can levy tax on motor vehicles ente1i11g the Municipality area under Canto11-
ments Act 1924.
D
Rule of !11te1pretatio11 : General law a11d Special Law--Hannonious
construction.

Doctrine of implied repeal-Applicability of

The Cantonment Boards in Saugor, Mhow and Jabalpur, by issuing E
notifications, imposed entry tax on motor vehicles in exercise of their
power under Sec. 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. All those notifications
were challenged before the High Court by filing Writ Petitions. The Court
allowed the petitions holding that the Cantonment Boa1·ds have no power
to levy entry tax on motor vehicles because of the prohibitions contained F
in Section 6 of the Taxation Act. Hence these appeals.

On behalf of the Cantonment Boards, it was contended that
Municipalities Act, 1961 being a later Act than the Taxation Act, 1947, the
provisions of the later Act would prevail ifthere is any repugnancy between
the two. Thus, imposition of entry tax having been provided for in Section G
127 of the Municipalities Act, the same could be lawfully levied by the
Cantonment Boards under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act. It wc1s
further contended that though Municipalities Act did not expressly repeal
the provisions of the Taxation Act, principle of implied repeal is applicable
in the situation. It was urged that Taxation Act having not provided for H
813
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A any levy on the entry of motor vehicles as is provided under Section 127
of the Municipalities Act, there is no repugnancy between the two
provisions.

On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the maxim leges
postetiures pliores contrmias abrogant is subject to the exception embodied
B in the maxim : generalia specialibus 11011 derogant, which means that the
later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws but subject to the exception that
general law does not derogate from a special one. And, thus, the
Municipalities Act cannot be said to have repealed the provisions of the
Taxation Act which was a Special Act. It was also contended that the
C expression "vehicles" in the Municipalities Act should be interpreted to
mean all vehicles other th:in motor vehides for which 'I ~pcch1I provision
has been made in the Taxation Act.

Allowing the appeals, this Court

D HELD : 1. Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 is a
special provision dealing with levy of tax on motor vehicles nsed or kept
for use. There is no provision in the Act for levy of any tax on entry of
motor vehicles alone. [820-F-G]

2. Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 authorises imposition
E of tax on vehicles, boats and animals entering the limits of the
Municipality as provided in Section 127 of the said Act. [820-G]

3. Since the Taxation Act does not provided for any imposition of tax
on entry whereas Municipalities Act authorizes for such levy, there is no
any inconsistency or repugnancy between the two provisions. [821-E-F]
F
4. Since the Taxation Act special Law does not have any provision
authorising imposition of entry tax and the Municipalities Act the general
Law provides for such imposition, there would be no bar for the
Municipality to impose entry tax on all vehicles. This is the only harmonious
G constmction by which both provisions remain operative. [822-C-D]

Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Anr. Etc. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors.
Etc. Etc., [1990] 4 SCC 406, relied on.

5. There is no repugnancy between Sections 3 and 6 of the Taxation
H Act and Section 127(1) (iii) of the Municipalities Act and both provisions
CANTONMENT BO. MHOW v. M.P.S.R. TPT. CORPN. [PAITANAIK,J.] 815

operate in two different fields and so the principle of implied repeal will A
have no application in the case. (823-E-F]

The Western India Theaters Ltd. v. The Ca11tonmellt Board, Poona
Cantonmellt, (1959] Supp. 2 SCR 63, relied on.

Yogendra Pal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1987] 1 SCC B
631; State of Orissa v. MA. Tuloch and Co., [1964] 4 SCR 461 and
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City v. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd.,
[1967] 1 SCR 798, referred to.

6. Since under Section 127(1)(iii) Municipalities Act, Municipality C
could levy a tax on motor vehicles entering the limits of the Municipality,
the same could be levied by the Cantonment Boards of Saugor, Mhow and
Jabalpur Under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. [824-F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3657 of
1987 Etc. D
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.87 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Misc. W.P. No. 916 of 1986.

P.N. Lekhi, M.K. Garg for the Appellant, in C.A. Nos. 6160- 62/83.
E
A.D.N. Rao and A.S. Rao for the Appellants. in C.A. Nos. 3657/87
and 6242-43 of 1983.

B.D. Agarwal Niraj Sharma, (H.K. Puri) for Rajinder Narain & Co.
(NP) S.K. Mehta, D. Mehta and Fazlin Anam for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PA'ITANAIK, J. These six appeals raise a common question and are
directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the said
common question of law being whether the Cantonment Board is entitled
to levy entry tax on Motor Vehicle? The High Court of Madhya Pradesh G
by the impugned judgments has come to the conclusion that in view of the
bar of imposition of tax by any local authority contained in Section 6(1) of
the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Taxation Act') the Municipality could not have imposed
the entry tax on Motor Vehicles conferred under Section 127 of the H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Municipalities Act') and consequently the Cantonment Board in exercise
of its power under Section 60(1) of the Cantonment Act cannot impose the
entry tax on motur vehicles, the said power be co-extensive with the power
of a Municipality under section 127 of the Municipalities Act.

B The broad facts leading to the impugned judgments of Madhya
Pradesh High Court may be briclly stated as under :

To consolidate and amend the law relating to the administration of
Cantonments th.: Cantonments Act 1924 (Act 2 of 1924) was enacted in
C place of the earlier Cantonment Act (Act 15 of 1910 and the Cantonment
Code of 1912) to bring the law relating to the Administration of Canton-
ments in conformity with the ordinary Municipal law. Cantonments is
ddined in Section 3 of the said Act to mean any place or plac.:s in which
any part of the Forces is quartered to be declared and notified in the
Official Gazette by the Central Government. Under Section 10 of the said
D Act for every Cantonment there shall be a Cantonment Board and the said
Board is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal
with power to acquire am.I hold property both moveable and immovable as
provided under Section 11 of the said Act. Chapter V of the said Act deals
with taxation which could be imposed by the Cantonment Board. Section
E 60 of the Act is a General Power of taxation which may be extracted herein
below:

60. Genc:ral Power of tu.xatio11: (I) The Boan.I may, with the previous
sanction l>f the Central Government, impose 111 any cantonment
any tax which under any enactment for the time being in force,
F may be imposed in any municipality in the State wherein such
cantonment is situated.

(2) Any tax imposed under this section shall take effect from the
date of its notification in the Official Gazette or where any later
date specified in this behalf in the notification, from such later
G date.

The Madhya Pradei.h Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 (M.P. Act
No. VI of 1947) provide for the levy of a tax on Motor Vehicles in Madhya
Pradesh. Section 3(1) the said Act entiled the Taxation Authority to levy
H tax on motor vehicles used or kept for use at the rate specified in the First
CANIONMENTBD. MHOWv. M.P.S.R. TPT. CORPN.[PAITANAIK,J.] 817

Schedule read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. While the A
Taxation Act was in force the Madhya Pradesh legislatures enacted the law
relating to Municipalities and to make better provision for the organisation
and administration of Municipalities in Madhya Pradesh called the Madhya
Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P. Act No. 37 of 1961). The aforesaid
Municipalities Act repealed the earlier law relating to Municipalities in
different parts of Madhya Pradesh, namely, the Central Provinces and
B
Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act,
1954, the Vindhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1946, and the Bhopal State
Municipalities Act, 1955. Section 127(1)(iii) of the said Municipalities Act
which has a direct bearing in deciding the controversy that has arisen in
these appeals may be extracted hereinafter in extenso for better apprecia- c
tion of the point in issue.

127. Taxes which may be imposed - (1) A council may, from time
to time, and subject to the provisions of this Chapter, and any
general or special order which the State Government may make D
in this behalf, impose in the whole or in any part of the Municipality
any of the following taxes, for the purposes of the Act, namely :

(iii) a tax on vehicles, boats and animals used as aforesaid entering
the limits of the Municipality but not liable to taxation under clause
00. E

The Cantonment Board Saugor by Notification No. 344 dated
November 24, 1973 in exercise of power under Section 60 of the Canton-
ment Act made pr01ision for imposition of the Vehicles Entry Tax at the
rates specified in the said Notification. Similarly the Cantonment Board, F
Mhow by Notification dated 19.12.1979 imposed similar entry tax on Motor
Vehicles. The Cantonment Board, Jabalpur by notification dated 6th May,
1978 also imposed the entry tax on motor vehicles in exerci5c ul pow~r
under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act. All these Notifications i;sucd by
different Cantonment Boards were challenged before the Madhya P"adesh
High Court by filing Writ Petitions and those Writ Petitions were allowed G
by the impugned judgments of the High Court and it was held that the
Cantonment Board has no power to levy entry tax on motor vehicles so
long as the prohibitions contained in Section 6 of the Taxation Act con-
tinues and accordingly the notifications issued by the Cantonment Board
were quashed and thus the present appeals. H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A Mr. Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the different Can-
tonment Boards as well as Mr. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for
some of the Cantonment Boards challenged the correctnes of the judgment
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court inter a/ia on the ground that the
Municipalities Act being a later Act than the Taxation Act, the provisions
of the later Act would prevail if there is any repugnancy between these two.
B In this view of the matter tht: imposition of entry tax having been provided
for in Section 127(iii) of the Municipalities Act, the same could be lawfully
levied by the Cantonment Board under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act.
It was further contended that though the Municipalities Act did not
expressly repeal the provisions of the Taxation Act but the same being a
C later Act the principles of implied repeal should be applied and therefore,
any embargo contained in the Taxation Act for levy of entry tax because
of Section 6 of the Taxation Act will have no application. It wu.s also urged
that the proviso to Section 7 of the Taxation Act would indicate that the
embargo contained in Section 6 of the said Act would apply only if the
D Cantonment Board agrees not to recover any tax and in the absence of any
consent of the Cantonment Board the embargo contained in imposition of
tax under Section 6 of the Taxation Act wiJI not apply. Mr. Lekhi, learned
senior counsel also urged that the Taxation Act having not provided for
any levy on the entry of Motor Vehicles as is provided under Section
127(1)(iii) of the Municipalities Act there is infact no repugnancy between
E two provisions and, therefore, so far as the levy of entry tax on motor
vehicles is concerned, it must be held that the prohibitions contained in
Section 6 of the Taxation Act will not gel attracted. La~tly Mr. Lekhi
argued that doctrine of desuetude should apply in the present case in as
much as the provi,ion~ of Secti~n 7 of the Taxation Act though enacted
F since 1947 has not been in use so far and no grant has ever been given to
the appellants Cantonment Boards or for that matter to any other local
authorities.

Mr. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents
and Mr. S.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for some of the respon-
G dents on the other hand contended that the statutory interpretation con-
tained in the latin maxim : Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant is
subject to the exception embodied in the maxim : generalia specialibus 11011
derogant. In other words the theory that the later laws abrogate earlier
contrary laws is subject to the exception that the general law does not
H derogate from a special one and applying the said principle the Motor
CANTONMENT BD. MHOW v. M.P.S.R TPT. CORPN. [PATrANAIK, .I.) 819

Vehicles Taxation Act being a special Act dealing with levy of tax on Motor A
Vehicles the later law, namely, the Municipalities Act cannot be said to
have repealed the earlier provisions of the Taxation Act and on the other
hand, it must be presumed that the situation was intended to continue to
be dealt with by the specific provision contained in the Taxation Act rather
than the later general provisions contained in the Municipalities Act and,
therefore, the High Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion
B
that the Cantonment Board could not have issued the Notification levying
tax on entry on Motor Vchicles. The learned counsel also urged that the
duty of the Court being to put a construction by which both the provisions
could be sustained, the expression 'vehicle' in Municipalities Act should be
interpreted to mean all vehicles other than Motor Vehicles for which a c
special provision has been made in the Taxation Act and so construed the
Cantonment Board would not have any jurisdiction to levy entry tax on
Motor Vehicles. The relevant Sections of the Madhya Pradesh Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act may quoted hereunder :

"3 Lny of Tax - (2) The tax leviable under subsection (1) shall be D
paid by the owner of the motor vehicle used or kept of use -

(i) for a whole quarter at one-fourth of the annual rate specified
in the First schedule, and for two or more whole quarters,
pro rata; or E
(ii) for any period expiring on the last day of a quarter and not
exceeding two months at one-sixth or one-twelfth of the rate
specified in the First Schedule, according as the period ex-
ceeds, or does not exceed one month.
F
6. Bar of imposition of tax by any local autho1ity - (1) Notwithstand-
ing anything contained in any other enactment for the time being
in force, no local authority shall, after the commencement of this
Act, impose for enhance a tax, loll or licence fee in respect of a
motor vehicle and if any local authority has imposed such tax, toll
or licence fee since before the lst day of April, 1942 and the same
G
is still in force all the commencement of this Act any person who
is liable to pay such tax, toll or licence fee to such authority shall
be deemed to have paid it.

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the imposition, H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A enhancement or recovery of an octroi tax levied hereafter by any
local authority or a terminal tax levied and in force on the 1st
January, 1937 within the local area under the jurisdiction of any
local authority.

(7) Grant to local authorities - (1) The State Government shall at
B the close of the financial year 1947-48 and of each financial year
thereafter make lo every Cantonment Board, Municipal Commit-
tee and notified area committee·which was imposing a tax, loll or
licence fee in respect of motor vehicles, before the 1st day of April,
1942, a grant of the same as was being paid by the State Govern-
c ment lo such board or committee immediately before the commen-
cement of this Acl :

Provided that no sum shall be payable to Cantonment Board
unless it agrees not to recover any lax, toll or licence fee in respect
of motor vehicles.
D
(2) Any sum payable under sub-section (1) shall be charged on
the Consolidated Fund of the State."

The rival submission require a careful examination of different
provisions of both the Acts and certain principles of interpretation of a
E statute.

The "1dmitted pnsition that emerges from the facts already narrated
arc that the Canlonmcnl Act, 1924 is the earliest in point of lime which
t:mpoWt'!'ed the Cantonment Board to impor-e tax with the previous sanc-
F lion of the Central Government which tax could be imposed in any
Muniripality in the Stale where such Cantonment is situated. The Madhya
Prade,h Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 is a spcci:1l provision dealing
with kvy of tax on Motor Vehicle which is used or kept for use. There is
no provision in the «foresaid Taxation Act for levy of any tax on entry of
Motor Vehicles alone. The Municipalities Act of 1961, however, authorises
G imposition of tax on vehicles, boats and animals entering the limits of the
Municipality as provided in Section 127(l)(iii) of the said Act. In the
aforesaid. premises it is required lo be considered and decided as to
whether the Cantonment Board could impose tax on vehicles entering the
limits of the Cantonments which could have otherwise been levied by the
H Municipality in exercise of power under Section 127(1)(iii) ·of the
CANfONMENf BD. MHOW v. M.P.S.R. TPT. CORPN. [PATfANAIK, J.] 821

Municipalities Act. It may be further noticed that the Motor Vehicles A
Taxation Act as well as the Municipalities Act are both enacted by the
State Legislature. The first question that arises for consideration is whether
there is any repugnancy between the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act and the Municipalities Act in relation to imposition of tax on
Motor Vehicles entering the limits of the Municipality. As has been stated
B
earlier under the Taxation Act, tax could be imposed on the Motor
Vehicles which is used or kept for use as provided in Section 3(2) of the
said Act and there is no provision for imposition of tax on vehicle~ which
is neither used nor kept for use but for mere entry into any municipal limits.
When the legislatures imposed a ban on levy of tax by any local authority
under Section 6 of the Taxation Act what is prohibited is levy of tax which c
is leviable under Section 3(2) of the Taxation Act. When the same legisla-
ture enacted the Municipalities Act in 1961 and authorised the
Municipalities to impose tax on vehicles entering the limits of the
Municipality under Section 127(1)(iii) they must be presumed to be aware
of the provisions of the Taxation Act and leviability of the tax thereunder D
in respect of Motor Vehicles used or kept for use. The expression 'vehicle'
having been defined in Section 2(38) to include a bicycle, a tricycle, motor
car and every wheel conveyance which is used or capable of being used on
a· public street, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of Mr.
Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents to interpret the
E
same expression to mean vehicles other than the 'motor vehicles'. Since the
Taxation Act does not provided for any imposition of tax on entry of the
Motor Vehicles within Municipal limits whereas the Municipal Act
authorises for such levy under Section 127(1)(iii) we do not find any
inconsistency or repugnancy between the two provisions. In other words
while under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act a tax could be imposed on F
Motor Vehicles used or kept for use by the registering authority, no such
imposition can again be made by any local authorify including the
Municipalities under Section 127(1)(ii) of the Municipalities Act. But so
far as the imposition of tax on Motor Vehicles entering into the Municipal
limits is concerned, which is provided under Section 127(1)(iii), of the G
Municipalities Act the said provision cannot be said to be repugnant to the
special statute in respect of Motor Vehicles, namely, the Motor Vehicles
taxation Act. It has been stated by this Court in the case of Ashoka
Marketing Ltd. and Another Etc. Etc. v. Punjab National Bank and Others
Etc. Etc., (1990) 4 SCC 406 that the principle of statutory interpretation, H
_,
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 3 S.C.R.

A namely, later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws is subject to exception that
a general provision does not derogate from a special one. This would mean
that where a literal meaning of the general enactment covers a situation
for which specific provision is made by another enactment contained in the
earlier Act, it is presumed that the situation was intended to be continued
to be dealt with by the specific provision rather than the later general one.
B In other words if the Taxation Act would have contained a provision
authorising imposition of Entry Tax on Motor Vehicle then certainly the
later general Act, namely, the Municipalities Act even if by making a I
provision for imposition of entry tax on vehicles entering into the Municipal 1

c
limits would not have operated. But since the special law, namely, the
Taxation Act does not have any proyision authorising imposition of tax on
f
entry of Motor Vehicles and the later general provision, namely, the
Municipalities Act, provides for imposition of the entry rax on Motor
Vehicle~. The said provision would remain valid and would be applicable
and there would be no bar for the Municipality to impose entry tax on all
vehicles including Motor Vehicles for entering into the limits of the
D
Municipalities. This construction being the only harmonious construction
by which both the provisions remain operative it is the duty of the Court
to adopt such construction. There is no dispute with the proposition
advanced by Lekhi, learned senior counsel with regard to theory of implied
repeal. This theory the learned senior counsel advanced since the
E Municipalities act did not repeal the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act. It was held by this Court in the case of Yogender Pal Singh
& Others v. Union of India & Ors., [1987) 1 SCC 631 :

"It is well settled that when a Competent Authority makes a new
law which is totally inconsistent with the earlier law and the two
F
cannot stand together any longer it must be construed that the
earlier law has been repealed by necessary implication by the later
law."

In considering the applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses
G Act 1897 in the case of State of Orissa v. M.A. Tuloch and Co., [1964) 4
SCR 461 this Court had observed :
!
"The entire theory underlying implied repeals is that there is no
need for the later enactment to state in express terms that an
H earlier enactment has been repealed by using any particular set of
CANTONMENT BD. MHOW v. M.P.S.R. TPT. CORPN. (PATIANAIK.J.] 823

words or form of drafting but that if the legislative intent to A
supersede the earlier law is manifested by the enactment of
provisions as to effect such supersession, then there is in law a
repeal notwithstanding the absence of the words 'repeal' in the
later statute."

The aforesaid observation no doubt has been made while analysing B
the effect of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and the continuance of
rights accrued and liabilities incurred under the superseded enactment and
thus has no direct application to the case in hand.

In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I v. C
Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., [1967] 1 SCR 798 on which Mr. Lekhi learned
senior counsel placed strong reliance, the question for consideration was
whether the ordinance being repugnant to Section 23A of the Income Tax
Act, 1922 it can be said that there is an implied repeal of Section 23A of
the Act. In this connection it was held by this Court :
D
"there is a manifest repugnancy between the provisions of the
Ordinance and of Section 23A of the Act and it must be taken that
there is a implied repeal of Section 23 of the Act to the extent of
that repugnancy created by Section 3 of the Ordinance and so long
as the Ordinance remain in force."
E
But in view of our conclusion that there is no repugnancy between
Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and the
provisions of Section 127(1)(iii) of the Municipalities Act and both the
provisions operate in two different fields the principle of implied repeal
will have no application. In this connection it wonld be appropriate for us F
to notice one decision of this Court in the case of The Western India
Theatres Ltd. v. The Cantonment Board, Poona, Cantonment [1959] Supp.
2 SCR 63, where the validity of levy of entertainment tax under Entry 50
in Schedule VII of the Government of India Act, 1935 was under con-
sideration. The Entry in question was to the effect :
G
"taxes on luxury or entertainment or amusement"
'
It was contended before the Court that the tax in question was really
a tax imposed for the privilege of carrying on any trade or calling under
Entry 46 and, therefore, the same cannot exceed Rs. 100 per annum as H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A provitled under Section 142A of the Government of India Act 1935 and
Rs. 250 per annum under Article 276(2) of the Constitution. The Court
repelling the argument held:

"The entry contemplates luxuries, entertainments, and amusements
B as objects on which the tax is to be imposed. If the words are to
be so regarded, as we think they must, there can be no reason to
differentiate between the giver and the receiver of the luxuries, 1
entertainment's, or amusements and both may, with equal
propriety, he made amenable to the tax. It is true that economists
regard an entertainment, it does become a tax on expenditure, but
c there is no warrant for holding that entry 50 contemplates only a
tax on moneys spent on luxuries, entertainment's or amusements.
The entry, as we have said, contemplates a law with respect to
these maltas regarded as objects and a law which imposes tax on
the act of entertaining is within the entry whether it falls on the
D giver ur the receiver of that entertainment. Nor is the impugned
tax a tax imposed for the privilege of carrying on any trade or
calling."

Thus considered, the tax leviablc on Motor Vehicles when used or
E kept for use under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act is different from the tax leviable on Motor Vehicles. Entering
the limits of the Municipality under Section 127(1)(iii) of the Madhya
Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and there is no repugnancy between the
two and both the provisions can therefore operate in its own field. Since
p under Section 127(1)(iii) of the Municipalities Act, Municipality could levy
a tax on Motor Vehicles entering the limits of the Municipality, the same
could be levied by the Cantonment Board in exercise of its power under
Section 60 of the Cantonments Act with the previous sanction of the
Central Government. Consequently, notifications issued by the Canton-
ment Boards of Mhow, Jabalpur and Saugar were valid notifications issued
G under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act and imposition of tax on Motor
Vehicles entering into the limits of the Cantonment Boards cannot be said
to be invalid or inoperative. The High Court in our opinion committed
error in striking down those notifications on the ground of repugnancy with
this special legislation, namely, the: Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxa-
H tion Act.
CANTONMENT BO. MHOWv. M.P.S.R.TIT.CORPN. [PATIANAIK,J.] 825

So far as the contention of Mr. Lekhi, the leaned senior counsel with A
regard to the proviso to Section 7 of the Taxation Act is concerned, we
however, do not find any force in the same in as much as Section 7 deals
with the grant to the local authorities and it provides that if a grant was
being paid by the State Government to any such Board or Committee
immediately before the commencement of the Taxation Act then the said
grant shall be continued to be paid. But the Cantonment Board by virtue
B
of the proviso will not be entitled to receive the said grant unless it agrees
not to recover any tax, toll or licence in respect of the Motor Vehicles. In
other words, Section 7 and proviso thereto deals with the right of the
Cantonment Board and the Municipality to receive a grant which was being
paid by the State Government prior to the commencement of the Taxation c
Act and the said provision has no connection with the imposition of tax on
Motor Vehicle which is governed by Section 3(2) and the bar on such
imposition which is contained in Section 6 of the Taxation Act. In this view
of the matter, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Lekhi, the
learned senior counsel that conjoint reading of Section 6 and 7 and its D
proviso would lead to the conclusion that even under the Taxation Act a
Cantonment Board was entitled to impose tax on Motor Vehicles used or
kept for use notwithstanding the bar under Section 6.

Coming to the conclusion of the applicability of doctrine of
desuetude Mr. Lekhi, the learned senior counsel strongly relied upon the E
decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and
Another v. Bharat Forge Company Ltd. and Other, f1995] 3 SCC 434 and
submitted that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act must be
held to be of disuse as no grant as provided in Section 7 of the Taxation
Act has ever been made ar any point of time after the enactment of the p
said Act in 1947. This contention is wholly unsustainable in law in asmuchas
we are not concerned with the question of grant to local authorities and
Cantonment Boards as provided under Section 7 of the Taxation Act but
we are concerned with the leviability of tax on Motor Vehicles under
Section 3(2) of the Taxation Act. It is nobody's case that no tax was being
levied on Motor Vehicles which is used or kept for use under Section 3(2) G
of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947. That apart to
apply the principle of desuetude it is necessary to establish that the statute
in question has been in disuse for long and the contrary practice of some
duration has evolved. In other words to make the aforesaid principle
applicable in the case in hand it is required to be established that the H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A provisions of Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act has been in
disuse for a long period and thaL the imposition of tax on entry of Motor
vehicles into the Cantonment limit has been in operation for a fairly long
period. neither of these two ingredients has been satisfied in the case in
hand and therefore the aforesaid principle of desuetude is of no applica-
tion to the case in hand.
B
In the aforesaid premises, these appeals are allowed. The impugned
judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court are set aside and is it held
that the respective Cantonment Boards are entitled to levy tax on entry of
Motor Vehicles into limits of the Cantonment Boards pursuant to the
C notifications issued by the Cantonment Boards in exercise of power under
Section 60 of the Cantonments Act. But in the circumstances there will be
no order as to costs.

J.N.S. Appeals allowed.