Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.
1. The petitioner herein has challenged the validity of the West Bengal Additional Tax and One-Time Tax on Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1992 on the ground that no previous sanction of the President was obtained before introducing the Amendment Bill in the Legislative Assembly.
2. The learned Advocate of the petitioner submits that the said Amendment Act is invalid as the same offends the provisions of Article 301 read with Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India.
3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that the sanction of the President was not necessary for the amending Act as the principal Act had the sanction of the President. Referring to a decision reported in : AIR1991SC998 , Piasmac Machine . v. Collector of Central Excise. Mr. Khan, learned Advocate of the respondents submits that the Supreme Court also approved the aforesaid reasoning and confirmed the view taken in the similar circumstances by Madras High Court.
4. Furthermore, none of the provisions of the Amendment Act directly impede the movement of goods or the free-flow of trade. The petitioner herein questioned the validity and/or legality of the provisions of the Amendment Act mainly on the ground that the same offends the provisions of the Article 301 read with Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India and as such the said West Bengal Additional Tax and One-Time Tax on Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1992 is not a valid Amendment Act according to the petitioner herein.
5. The respondent State has filed a detailed affidavit wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the additional tax is required and is being utilized for maintenance of essential road repairs and also for the cost of administration of transport. It has been submitted by the respondent State that the provisions relating to imposition of the said tax are being amended from time to time considering the sharp increase of prices of materials to be used for the aforesaid purpose and also to meet the increased administrative costs.
6. Learned Advocate of the respondents submitted that the imposition of additional tax on the vehicles of the petitioners is compensatory in character and the same therefore cannot restrict the freedom of trade and commerce carried on under Article 301 of the Constitution of India and therefore it is not necessary according to the respondents to comply with the provisions of Article 304(b).
7. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajastkan, reported in 0065/1962 : [1963]1SCR491 and Khyerbari Tea Company Ltd. v. State of Assam, reported in : [1964]5SCR975 , were considered extensively by a Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of G.K. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in : [1975]2SCR715 , in the following manner:
'13. In view of the grave impact of this judgment, when appeals from Rajasthan High Court came up for consideration in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 0065/1962 : [1963]1SCR491 (hereinafter referred to as the Automobile case) a larger Bench was constituted and that Bench considered the question once again. The appellants in that case impugned the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, inter alia as violating Article 301. The High Court dismissed the petitions and this court, by a majority of 4 to 3 held that the Act was valid and dismissed the appeals. The case practically overruled the decision in Atiabari case : [1961]1SCR809 , insofar as it held that if a State Legislature wanted to impose tax to raise money necessary in order to maintain roads, that could only be done after obtaining the sanction of the President as provided in Article 304(b). In Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam, : [1964]5SCR975 it was said that the decision in Atiabari case as affirmed in Automobile case with a clarification that regulatory measures or measures imposing compensatory tax do not come within the purview of restrictions contemplated in Article 301 and that such measures need not comply with the requirement of the provisions of Article 304(b). In whatever way one may choose to put it, the effect of the majority decision in the Automobile case is that a compensatory tax is not a restriction upon the movement part of trade and commerce.'
8. The learned Advocate of the respondent State specifically submitted that the trailors which carry heavy loads more than carried by local trucks, mini-trucks, 3 wheelers etc. cause considerable stress on the roads and considerable increase in the cost of repair and maintenance of roads. The learned Advocate of the State further submitted that the State Legislature for the aforesaid reasons has felt it necessary to bring the trailors under the ambit of the said Tax Act and accordingly the West Bengal Additional Tax and One-Time Tax on Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 1994 has been passed by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly.
9. After scrutinizing the provisions of the Amendment Act and considering the materials on record as disclosed by the respective parties, I am unable to hold that the has been an infringement of the guarantee under Article 301 of the Constitution of India in the present case and as such applicability of Article 304 also does not arise herein.
10. The provisions of the Amendment Act only imposed compensatory taxes for facilitating trade, commerce and intercourse and therefore the said Amendment Act is not hit by Article 301 of the Constitution of India. By the Amendment Act of 1994, the existing tax has virtually been enhanced and such enhancement of the existing tax normally cannot offend the provisions of Article 301 of the Constitution of India. It has been specifically observed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Abdul Qadir, reported in : [1970]1SCR700 , that unless the High Court comes to the finding on the basis of available materials regarding infringement of the guarantee under Article 301 of the Constitution of India, further question as to whether the statute is saved under Article 304(b) does not arise.
11. As I have already held that in the present case the provisions of the Amendment Act do not infringe the guarantees under Article 301 of the Constitution of India, question of offending the provisions of Article 304(b) in the instant case do not arise.
12. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is thus dismissed.
13. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
14. Let xerox certified copy of this judgment be made available to the respective parties, if applied for, on urgent basis.