Holding

The tax is leviable on all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State, irrespective of whether they operate on public roads, unless the owner obtains a valid exemption certificate under the Act.

Summary

The Travancore Tea Co. Ltd., a tea plantation owning 17 motor vehicles, claimed that the vehicles were used only on private estate roads for agricultural purposes and therefore exempt from tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963. The State levied tax, seized a lorry and the company paid the amount under protest. The High Court held the vehicles liable and the company appealed. The Supreme Court examined whether the phrase "used or kept for use in the State" in s.3 of the Act includes vehicles that never operate on public roads, and whether the definition of "motor vehicle" under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as amended) excludes such vehicles. It held that the tax applies to all motor vehicles suitable for road use that are kept in the State, unless the owner obtains a certificate of non‑use under s.3(2), s.5 or s.6. The company had not complied with the exemption procedure, so the tax was payable. The appeals were allowed in part, upholding the tax liability.

Issues considered

Whether the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 levies tax on motor vehicles used exclusively on private estate roads and not on public roads.
Whether the definition of "motor vehicle" in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as amended by Act 100 of 1956) excludes vehicles used solely on the owner's premises from taxation.
Whether the State has constitutional competence under List II Entry 57 to tax such vehicles.
Whether the exemption provisions under s.3(2), s.5 and s.6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act were complied with by the appellant.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. List II Entry 57, s. List III Entry 35
Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963s. 13, s. 2, s. 3, s. 3(2), s. 5, s. 6
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 2(18)

Subjects

motor vehicle taxpublic roadprivate estateexemption certificateconstitutional entryList IItax liabilityregistration presumption

Judgment

1388

TRAVANCORE TEA CO. LTD. BTC.
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
June 3, 1980
B [S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND p, S. 'KAILASAM, JJ.]

Ker:Jla Moror Vehicles Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963) S<ctioru 3, 5 .and 6,
scope of-"Motor Vehicles used for use in the State", whether the JUer or •
keeping for use in the State means user on public roads only.

The Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963) """' bmnght
c into force on 1-7-63. The Act provides that a "tax at the rates fixed lly the
Government by nOtification in the Gazette not exceeding tho marimnm rate
specified in· the First Schedule shall be levied on all motor vehicles ~ or
1'ept for me in the state".

The alJpellant company owned 17 motor vehicles, tracton, trailelll and
lorries all of which are registered in the Company's name under the lillJO)r
D Vehicles Act. ·Tue Company alleged that the vehicles were purcbaoed by it
oolely and exclusively for use in the estates and intended to be mcd Ollly for
agricultural purpose and were not used nor kept for use in the S1are as
oontemplated under section 3 of the Act. The Company is a tea pll'Ulllllioo
having eight estates which )ie contiguous to each other and have an extent of
9422.44 acres in the aggregate. The Company for tlie purpose of plonlation
are maintaining roods fit for vehlculer traffic in the eight estates covering a
length of 131 miles in the aggregate. On 23rd September, 1964 a Bcd.fonl
Lorry owned by the Company and bearing registration No. KLK 1540 wa..
seized by the Police and taken into custody in Tangamullay Estate wblch is
one of the estates owned by the Company but later released on payment under
protest a sum of Rs. 3150/- as tax for the period between 1-7-1963 to 31-1U4.
The appellant Company filed O.P. 199 /65 before the High Court of Kerala
claiming that they were not liable to pay any tax on the Motor Vehicles. The
F H'gh Court remanded the matter to the Transport Authority for a ftDdlag on
the question raised. Since the Transport authorities was of the view that /
Section 3 covers private roads as well and decided against the appellant, the ,4
appellant moved the High Court once again in O.P. 2173/68. Having Jost'/
before the single bench and the Division Bench in the Letters Patent appeal, ·
the appellant oome up in appeal by special leave.

Allowing the appeals in part, the Court
G
HELD : 1. On reading sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles f
Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963), it is clear that a levy of tax is contemplaaod
enly on the vehicles that are uoed or kept for the uso on the public """"' of ~ •
the State. [1394GJ
Boiani Ores Ltd., v. Stale of Ort.so, [197S] 2 SCR 13! @ US, explained
H and distingnishcd. ·
2. Entry 57 in List II of the Constitution relates to taxeo on vchicleo, whet-
her mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads, including mun-
•
'~
TRAVANCORE TEA CO. V. STATE OF KERALA 1389

'Clll'S subject to the provisions of entcy 35of List Ill. This entry enables the
State Government to levy a tax on <ill vehicles whether mechanically propelled
<lr not, suitable for use on roads. Section 3 Of uie Kemla Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963) provides that a tax "shall be levied on all
motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State1'. The vehicles in the instant
case are mechanicWly propelled and suitable for use on roads. The levy is
Within the competence of the State Legislature as Entcy 57 in List II auth<>-
rires the levy on vehicles suitable for use tm roods. [1393 B-EJ B
3. In order to l~vy a tax on vehicles used or kept for use on public roads
of the Stare and at the same time to avoid evasion of tax the legislature has
prescribed the procedure. Under sub section 2 of section 3 there is a ·pre-
"1llllption that a motor vehicle for which l,he certificate of regisjration is
::"\;~t shall be deemed to be used or kept for use in the State. Section 3(2)
~eguanls the revenue of the State by relieving it from the burden of proving c
- ·tbBt the vehicle was used or kept for use on the public roods of the State.
At tfu same time the interest of the bonafide ownel'ls safeguarded by enabling
him to claim and obtain a certificate of non-user from the prescribed authority .
.In order to enable the owner of the vehicle or the person who is in pos.5e'SSion
·or being in control of the motor vehicles of which the certificate Of registra-
tion is c;urrent to claim exemption from tax he should get a certificate in
the prescn'bed manner from the Regional Transport Officer. Section 5 provides D
far exemption from payment of tax under certain circumstances. Section 6
·enables the registered owner or a person in possession or control of su,ch a
vehicle to get refund of tax if the conditions specified therein are satisfied.
Thus in order to enable the registered owner or person in possessiOI;l or control
of a vehicle ~o get exemption of tax, ad.van.Ce intimation to the R.T.O. along
with the surrender of certificate of registration iS necessary. The provision of
t-- s. 3 sub-sec. (2) as well as s. 5 and s. 6 are meant to prevent e"VBSion of tax E
.and to provide for exemption from tax in proper cases. Though the purpose
·of. the Act is to tax vehicles that are used or kept for use on the public roads
o0f the State, the State is entitled for the purpose of safeguarding the revenues
of the State and to prevent evasion of the nu to enact provision like provision
as in s. 3 raising a presumption that the vehicle is used or kept for 11se in the
State witlwut any further proof unless exemption is claimed under s. 3(2),
·~· 5 and s. 6. [1393 G-H, 1394 A-G]
F
'-1r---.{ In order to claim exemption from payment of tax requirements of s. 3(2)
.or "ss. 5 and 6 should be. satisfied. Surrender of the registration certifioote
.contemplated under s. 5 is for me.king sure that the motor veh~cles is not being
put to any use and does not have the effect of annulling the 'certificate of
registration. If the requirement contemplated under the Act is not satisfied the
re~red owner or person in possession or coptrol of the vehicles would not G
be entitled to claim any exemP!ion from payment of tax. [1394 H, 1395 A-BJ
n fo- 5. The Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Ac~ 1963 (Act 24 of 1963) came
into force on 18-3-63. Section 2(1) of the Taxation Act provides that words
3nd expression used but not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Centr:tl
:Act. 4 of· 1939) shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in
:!Mt Act. On the date when the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was
.enacted,. Motor VehiCles Act 1939 was amended (by Act 100 of 1956) and H
.the ~oded definition on the date when the Taxation Act came into force
.exempted o!!ly motor vehicles wbicli are of a special type adopted for use

l
. ~.
'
i•

1:190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R:.

A only in .factory or in any other enclosed premises. This amended defi,nitioo
will have to be read· into the Taxation Act which was enacted subsequent to
the date of the amendment (by Act 100 of 1956) of the definition of "mo!D<
vehicle" in s. 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central), 1939. [1396 F•H,
1397 Al
Crvn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 437-43&
B and 1460 ot 1970.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgments and Orders dated
24-3-1969 & 10-11-1969 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal •
Nos. 451/79, 630/69 & 807169.
A. B. Divan, M. Vellapally and T. M. Ansari for the Appellant
in CA 437170. \T
C M. Vellapally and T. M. Ansari for the Appellant in C.A .. 43&;\_
70.
Kapi! Sibal, M. Vel!apally ,and T. M. Ansali for the Appellant in
CA 1460170.
K. T. Harindranath and K. M. K. Nair for the Respondents in
D all the appeals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KAlLAsAM, J. These three appeals are by special leave granted
by this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court of
Kerala in Writ Appeals Nos. 451, 630 and 807 of 1969 respectively. ·
The questions that arise for consideration in all the. three appeals are!
E the same and can be dealt with together. As. the facts so far as they ,,.
are necessary for decision in these appeals are similar, we will con-
fine the judgment to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 437 of 1970.
The appellant in Ciivil Appeal No. 437 of 1970 is Travanrore
Tea Estates Co. Ltd. Vandiperiyar in Kerala State. The 1st respon-
F dent is the State of Kerala and respondents nos. 2 and 4 are the
~uth~ities functioning under the Kerala. Mo~r Ve!1k~
faxation Act (Act 24 of 1963) which will hereatter
be referred to~ the Act, was brouijit into force on 1-7-1963. TheAct
provides tbat "a tax at the rates fixed by the Government by nofifi." ·
cation in the Garette not exceeding the maximum rates specified in ,,~
G the First Schedulf> shall be levied onl all Motor Vehicles used or .keptl
for use in the State." The appellant company owned 17 motor vebi- r
cles, tractors, trailers and lorries all of which are registered in tbe _t •
company's name under the Motor Vehicles Act. The company alleg-
ed that the vehicles were purchased by it solely and exclusively &'.Ji'
use in the estates and intended to be used only for agricultural purposa
H and were not used nor kept for use ·in the State as contemplalsl .
Iunder s. 3 of the Act. The compwiy is a tea plantation having eighi .
estates which lie contiauous to each other and have an extent of

)
"TRAVANCORE TEA co. v. STATE OF KERALA (Kailasam, !.) 1391

9422.44 .acres in the aggregate. Til_e company for the purpose of A
plantation are maintaining roads fit for vehicnlar traffic in the eight
estates covering a length of 131 miles in the . aggrega~e. On 23rd
September, 1964 a Bedford Lorry owned by the company an<\ bear-
ing registration No. KLK-1540 was seized by the police and taken
into custody under s. 13 of the Act. According to the appellant the
-seizure was effected in Tengamullay Estate which is one of the eight B
estates owned by the company. The company wrote to the Depart-
ment on 28-12-1964 stating that the vehicle was being used for agri-
• cultural purpose on private roads in the :Estates aDJl the company
is not liable to pay tax and asked for the release Of the vehicle. On
the company paying a sum of Rs. 3,150/- as tax under
'\iprotest for the period between 1-7-63 to 31-12-64, the vehicle w~ c
_!')deased. The department proceeded to prosecute the appellant in
the Pee.rmade 1st Oass Magistrate's Court ind the case is still pend•
ing. The appellant company filed 0. P. No. 199/65 before \he High
Court of Kerala claiming that they were not liable to pay any tax.
on the motor vehicles. The High Court by its judgment dt. 3rd
D
March, 1966 directed the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam-2rul
respondent herein, to examine the question raised in the writ peti~
·!ion.and to pass final orders. It also directed that if the.petitioner was
aggrieved with the order he was at liberty to approach the High Cburt.
fu the· meanwhile it directed stay of prosecution and collection of tax.
·The matter was taken up for consideration by the 2nd respondent. The _E
·. · ~ 2nd 1espondent rejected the pleas of the appellant and by his order
dt. 12-4-68 held that the 13 vehicles mentioned in the Original Petition
were liable to pay ~ax under the Act. · The appellant filed a petition
before the High Court for appropriate relief. The High Court disposed
of the petition 0. P. No. 2173/68 along with 0. P. No. 2081/68 filed
by Peermade Tea Co. who are the appellants in C.A. 438/70 in this
.Court, by a common or<ler dt 19th December, 1968. Th.e learned!
~ held that the language in. s. 3 of the Act showed that there i$
a, d~ure from the legislative policy o:f restricti;ng the tax liabifay
only to vehicles using public roads. It held that the tax is imposed
by s. 3 on all the moitor vehiclres used or kept for use in the State
irrespective of any ,question as to whether they are used or kept for G
use on public roads or not. It rejected the contention on behalf. of
the appellant that legislature must be taken to have intended to levy
" f.- mich .tax only on motor vehicles , using or kept for use on pubfil:
roads. The learned .Judge also held that the Act is not beyond the
competence of thio legislative powers of the State as the tax.is le_viable
by the State in respect of all m.otor vehicles are used or kept for use H
, in the State quite irrespective of any question as •cy whether or not such
vehicles are us.ed on public roads.
I
\-
1392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS !1980] 3 S.C.lt.

A Aggrieved by the decision of the single Judge the appellant took
the matter up on Letters Pate¢ Appeal. The main contention raiself
on bebalf c:4. the appellant was that the learned single Judge was in
error in holding that all motor vehicles used or kept for 'use in the
Stlte quite irrespective of any question as to whether or not they are
used on public roads, is eaoneous in so far as i~ related to m.otOC
B vehicles used or kept exclusively for use in private estate and not
used oc kept for use on the public roads of the State. The Letters
Patent Bench affinned the decision of the single Judge and rejec!OO •
the appeal. The constitutional validity of the Act was not questioned
before the Bench. Holding that the legislative Entry 57 of the State
c l.ist only required that the vehicles should be suitable for use on roadsJ
and the charging section QO!y provided that the vehicle should bJ:\_
used or kept for use in the State the required conditions were satisfied
and there would be no justification for reading into the statute wordS-
that are not there, and restricting the levy only on vehicle;i using
public roads. While not contesting the correctness oll the observatioo
D of the Bench of the Kerala High Court that the levy cannot ba
restricted to vehicles using the public roads, it was submitted thall tllo
words in s. 3 cl. ( l ) of he Act "shall be levied on all motor vehicles
used or kept for use in the State" should be confined to vehlcles used
or kept for use on the public roads of the State, and not to vebic1es.
. tbat are intended to be confined within the premises of the Estate. In
E other words the controversy between the parties before the R.T.O. ~
the single Judge of the High Court and the Bench of the High Court
can be stated by el(traeting the question at issue as framed by tilt
R.T.O.

"I understand that the roads used by these vehicles
F (even those within the estates) come under the definition
of "Public Roads and Public Place" since at present I have
not afforded opportunity to the company to refute the basis
on which that fact is to be found. I make it clear that I am
not relying on that matter as a basis for this order and I
reserve my right to investigate that matter if needed be later.
I assume for argument sake (without conceding) that the
estate roads are private roads. E\ren in that case, I am of
the view that the company's vehicles are liable to pay tax.
It is not in dispute that the vehicles are used and are kept
for usei' within the State (The company roads are within
the K~rala State). It is also not disputed that the vehicles
H are registered and their registration certificates are current
and they are usable .motor vehicles. The tax levied under
the K.M.V.T. Act is a tax on the possession of usable motor
TJUYANCOll.B TEA co. v. STATE OF KERALA (Kai/asam, J.) I 39J

vdlide and it is realised for the propose of State Revenue. A
Such being the nature of the levy accooling to me, I feel
that irrespective of the q~tion whether the road on which
llill veilicle is intend~ to be used is private or public, the
tlU: ill attracted."
The question that falls for decision is whether on the assumption B
that tb6 motoc vehicles are used or kept for use within the estate.
and aot intended to be used on public roads of the State; the tax is
• leviatlle? In order to appreciate the question raised, it is n~
to refer to the relevant entry in the Omstitution, the provisiODS oji
the Act and the Motor Vehicles Act ;!lid the decision relating to the
quealioa rendered by this Court. (Entry 57 in List II of the Constitu- c
tion: relates to taxes on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled oo
not,. BOita.ble for use on roads, including tramcars subject to the
proviSloos of entry 35 of List ill. This entry enables the State
Government to levy a tax on all vehicles whether mechanically Jml'-
petle.d Ot' not, suitable for use on roads.) (emphasis supplied). There
is no dispute that the vehicles are mechanically propelled and suit- D
able lbr use on roads.
Section 3 cA. the impugned Act (Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation:
Act (Act 24 Of 1963) provides that a tax "@hall be levied on all
motor mllcles used or kept for use in the State." The levy is within
the mmpdm<:e of the State legij;lature as entry 57 in List II antho- E
rises hwy on vehicles suitable for use on roods. It has been laid
d<*ll by this Court in "Boiani Ores Ltd. v. Orissa,"(') that under
Eofi:y 57 of List II, the power of taxation cannot exceed compea-
satocy nature which must have some nexus with the vehicles using
tho l"Olldll i.e. public roads. If the vebicles do not use the roads, not-
withstanding that they are registered under the Act, they cannot be F
taxed..
. If the words used or kept for use fu the State is coostrued as
wed or kept for use on the public toads of the State, the Act would
be iil caofonnity with the powers conferred on the State legislafilre
under Entry 57 of List II. If the vehicles are Sllitable for use on
publio roads they are liable to be taxed. In order to levy a tax on G
vehii:fea used or kept foc use on: public roads of the State and at the
same t11nc to avoid evasion Q!i tax the legislature has prescribed the
procedure. Sub-section 2 o~ sec. 3 provides that the registered
OWB« or any person having possession of or control of a motoc
vehicle of. wbich · a certificate Of registration is current shall for the H
pw:pase of. this Act be deemed to use dr kept such vehicles for use
(I) [1975] 2 SCR 138 at 155.
1394 SUPllEME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.

A in the State except during any period for which the Regional Tmns-
port Authority has · certified in the prescribed manner that lhe
motor vehicle has not been used or kept for use. Under tbia sub-
section there is a presumption that a motor vehicle for whick the
certificate of registration is current shall be deemed to be used or
kept for use in the Slate. This provision safeguards the revenue of
B the State by relieving it from the burden of proving that the vebicle
was uesd or kept fur use on the public roads of the State. At the
same time the interest of the bonafide owner is safeguarded by
enabling him to claim and obtain a certificate of non-user from the
•
· prescribed authority. In order to enable the owner of the vehicle or
th"e person who is in possession or being in control of the motor
c vehicle of which the certificate of registration is curre111 to clai;m ;/
exemption from tax he should get a certificate in the pr=rlbed
manner from the Regional Transport Officer. "
Section 5 of the Act provides for exemption from payment of tax
under certain circumstances. It enables the registered owner or the
D person having possession or control of such vehicle to gi~e previous
intimation in writing to the R.T.O. that the vehicle .would ~ be
used !Or such period and at the same time surrender certificate ot
registration and permit oil the vehicle. Section: 6 enables the registered
owner or a person in possession or control of such a vehicle to ge~
refund cf tax if conditions specified in s. 6 are satisfied. Thus, in
E order to enable the registered owner or person in possession or con-
trol of a vehicle to get exemption of tax, adva_nce intimation to the
R T.O. along with the surrender of certificate of registration is neces-
sary. The provision of s. 3, su~sec. (2) as "'.ell as s. 5 and s. 6 are
meant to prevent evasion of tax 'l!ld to provide for exemption from
tax in proper cases. Though the purpose of the Act is to .tax vehicles
F that are used or kept for use on the public roads of the State, the
Slate is entitled for the purpose of saftlguarding the revenues of the
State and to prevent evasion of the tax, to enact provision like provi"
sion as in s. 3 raising a presumption tha~ the vehicle is used or. kep~
for use in the Staie without any further proof unless exemption is:
G
claimed under s. 3 (2), s. 5 and S· 6. It niay be observed that
reading sections 3, 5 and 6 it is clear that a levy of tax is contem·
>
plated only on the vehicles that are used or kept for use on the r
public roads of the State.
~·
'While we agree with the contentio~s of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the tax is only exigible on vehicles used oc kept
H fur use on public roads, we must observe that in order to claim
exemption from payment of ~ requirements of s. 3 (2) or ss. 5
and 6 should be ~atisfied. Surrender of the registratlon certificaie
TRAVANCORE TEA co. v. STATE OF KERALA (Kai/asam, l.) 1395

•contemplated under s. 5 is for making sur~ .that the motor vehiclei A'
·is not being put to any use andj does not have the effect of annulling
the· certificate of registration. If the requi=ent contemplated under
the Act iS not satisfied the registered owner or person in posssession
or. control of the vehicle would not be entitled to claim any exemp-
tionJrom payment of tax'.
B
it remains for consideration as to what is the appropriate order
that should be passed on the facts and circumstances of this 'c:ise: As
a general proposition of law as exemption ~from payment of !aX; had
not been claimed and obtained as required under this Act,. the appe1- · .
!ant would be liable to pay tax but as already pointed out and set out
clearly in the onler of the R.T.O., the question that was raised and c
·disputed was whether on the assumpti-On that the vehicles were kejJil:
for use in the estates ;i.Ione and not for use on the public roads of the
·State, tax is leviable. The authorities proceeded on the basis that
·even assuming that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the
public roads, they are liable to tax. _In this view, the appellant did
not apply for exemption or notify non-user as required under thel D
piovi<;kms of the Act- But on the facts :ind circumstances of the case
it is clear that the appellant claimed f.or exemption from tax on thei
grounrl that it was not1being u-'ed on the public roads. In the circums-
tances of the case we have to take it that though, in terms, require-
men; of ss. 3 and 5 have not been complied "ith, in effect the requirei-
ments have been satisfied as the dispute proceeded throughout or\ E
that basis. But as has been specifically stated by the R.T.0., the
question whether estate roads. are public roads is reserved for further
investigation and decision. · Equally the R.T.O. will be at liberty to act
un<ler s. 5(2) of the Act and decline exemption from tlie: liability to
pay tax for the relevant period if on verification it is found that the
F
, vehicle has been used during that period on the public road.
' .. ~ Before concluding, we would refer to a contention miSed. by the
· learned counsel based on the. decision of this Court in Boiani Ores
Ltd. v. Orissa, (supra). The plea of the learned couasel is that the
word "motor vehicle" should be understood as defined by s. 2(18)
•
'+ of the Motor V"hicles Act, 1939 and excluded from taxation motor G
;
I . vehi<:les "used solely upon the premises of the owner." As the vehicles

.' ·~
· \vith which we are concerned were claimed to have been kept for use
solely in the premises of the . company, it was contended that the
vehicles are not exigible to tax. This Court in the decision cited was
dealing with the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930. Section
·2(c) of the Orissa Taxation Act adopted the definition of Motor H
·vehicles Act as found in Motor Vehicles Act, 1914. The Motot'.
-vehicles Act, 1914 was repealed and replaced by the Motor Vehicles
1396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R.

A Act, 1939. The definition of 'motor vehicle' in s. 2(18) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 excluded motor vehicles used solely upon· thee
pmnises ct. the owner. The Orissa Motor vehicles Taxa,tion Act wa&
amended and Orissa Amendment Act, 1943 re-enacted the provisions
Of the Taxation Act. 'Motor Vehicles' was defined under s. 2 ( 18) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 excluding vehicles used solely upoo;
• the premises Of the OWller. Subsequently the definition ct. 'motor,
vehicle' under s. 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act was amended by
,
die Act 100 of 195 6 which confined the exemption from tax~tion to •
"motor vehicles of a ·special type adopted for use only in a fact.Ory
'QI in any other enclosed premises." The exemption from tax CllII·
only be claimed after amendment to s. 2(18) by Act, 100 of 19S6,
c if the vehicle was of special type ado¢ed for use only in a fact.ocy ;(_
or in any other enclosed premises and the exemption that was srail-
able before the amendment by Act 100 of 1956 to Motoc Vdlldes
used solely upon the premises of the owner was taken away. This.
Court held "if the subsequent, Orissa Motor Vehicles TBXMion
(Amendment) Act, 1943, incorporating the definition ct. 'motor:
D
vehicle' referred to the definition of 'motor vehicle' under the Ari. as
then existing, the effect of this legislative method would, in our view,
amount to an incorporation by reference of the provisions of s. 2(1);
of the Act in s. 2(c) of the Taxation Act . Any subsequent ameod-
ment in the A!:t or a total repeal of the Act under a fresh legislation.
E on that topic would not affect the definition of 'motor vehicle' in·
s. 2(c) of the Taxation Act." As a result this Court held that fue
definition of 'motor vehicle' given in s. 2(18) of the Motoc Veiticles .
Act, 1939 before the amendment by Act 100 of 1956 was applicable.
Relying on this decision, the learned counsel submitted that the test
that is to be applied to determine whether motor vehicle is l1able to·
F tax or not is whether it comes under the exemption provided by under
s. 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the amendment.. We /
are unable to accept the contention mainly on the ground that the "i
Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (Act 24 of 1963) came ·
into force on 18-3-63. Section 2(1) of the Taxation Act provide& that
words and expression used but not defined in the Motor V ehicle11 Act,.
G 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939) shall have the meaning respectively
assigned to them in that Act. On the date when the Kerala Motor t
Vehicles Taxation Act was enacted, Moto~ ~hicles Act 1939 was
·amended by Act 100 of 1956 and the amended definition on the date 1' •
when the Taxation Act came into force exempted only motor vehicles.
which are of a special type adopted for use only in a factory or in any
II other enclosed premises. The amended definition will have to be read
into the Taxation Act which was enacted subsequent to the date of the·
amendment of the definition of 'Motor Vehicle' by Act 100 of 1956<
TRAVANCORE TEA co. v. STATE OF KERALA (Kailasam, !.) 139 7

In this vi.ew we feel that the decision in Bolani's case (supca) will not A.
be of any assistance to the learned counsel for the appellants.
The appeals are allowed to thei extent indicated above. But in the
circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

S.R. 1.ppeals allowed in part.

\