Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

Motilal B. Naik, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. '

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. Undoubtedly, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the Government of India Act, 1935. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '443173',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
			'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
			'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
			'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Undoubtedly, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '443173',
		(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Transport Corporation of India Vs the Transport Commissioner and anr - Citation 443173 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '443173',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; <a href="/act/51329/government-of-india-act-1935-repealed-complete-act">Government of India Act, 1935</a> - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3',
		'appealno' => 'W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185',
		'appellant' => 'Transport Corporation of India',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - tax clearance certificate - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40 and 45 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Local Areas Act, 1996, General Sales Tax Act, Section 107 of Government of India Act, 1935 and Section 3 of Local Areas Act, 1987 - whether registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can insist for production of tax clearance certificate obtained from Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicle - purchaser or seller deals in states where rate of tax is low or nil and bring vehicle into state - as per precedent said legislation is enacted to defeat such practice of avoidance of sale Tax or other taxes - held, insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at time of registration of vehicle purchase outside state of justified.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Govt. Pleader',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2002-08-21',
		'deposition' => 'Writ petitions dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.</p><p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.</p><p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.</p><p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.</p><p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.</p><p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.</p><p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.</p><p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).</p><p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :</p><p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' </p><p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :</p><p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' </p><p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,</p><p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS </p><p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' </p><p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:</p><p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'</p><p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.</p><p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :</p><p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' </p><p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).</p><p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.</p><p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.</p><p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.</p><p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2003(1)ALT620',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Transport Commissioner and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '443173',
	(int) 1 => 'transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/443173/transport-corporation-india-vs-commissioner'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Motilal B. Naik, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In all these writ petitions, the principal issue which has fallen for consideration before us is whether the Registering Authority under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (for short 'the Act') can insist for production of Tax Clearance Certificate obtained from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of vehicles. Since a common issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. These petitioners are purchasers of various types of vehicles from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. When such vehicles are brought within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, as provided under Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>, the owners of the vehicles are required to register them with the concerned Registering Authorities in order to ply the vehicles on any public place or in any other place. It is the case of these petitioners, when these vehicles are purchased and brought to the State of Andhra Pradesh, at the time of registering these vehicles, the Registering Authorities are insisting for production of the Tax Clearance Certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department without which the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the vehicles. As long as the vehicles are not registered, the vehicles cannot be put to use and therefore, the registration of vehicle with the concerned Regional Registering Authorities is must for plying the vehicle.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submit that under the scheme of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act), Section 39 imposes a condition for registration of vehicles. Sections 40 and 41 provide the procedure for registration. Section 45 of the Act empowers the Registering Authority to refuse registration or renew the certificate of registration if certain conditions as contemplated thereunder are not fulfilled. Counsel contend that the Registering Authority though is competent to refuse registration of the vehicle or renew the certificate of registration if the conditions contemplated under Section 45 of the Act are not complied with but, however, production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department isnot contemplated under Section 45 and therefore, insistence of production of such certificate by the Registering Authorities is improper. In other words, according to the learned counsel, failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department cannot be a ground for refusal to Register the vehicle by the Registering Authorities and such insistence on production of such certificate at the time of Registration of the Vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. All the counsel, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction to the authorities declaring the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, as invalid and unjust and seek appropriate directions.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. In Writ Petition Nos. 3045, 3584, 3814, 6246, 6360, 9345 and 9371 of 2002, apart from assailing the legality of the action of the respondent-registering authorities in insisting production of tax clearance certificate from the commercial tax department, it is also contended that Section 23 of the Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, is repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act). Elaborating their submissions, counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a condition of payment of entry tax, for entry of a vehicle purchased outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that Section 39 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act) provides for registration of vehicle by the owners enabling them to ply the vehicle in any public area or in any other place. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorizes the registering authorities to refuse registration if certain conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. Counsel contended that imposition of condition for payment of entry tax as provided under Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 which is a State Legislation is unjust as it overrides the provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> which is a Central Act. Counsel, therefore, plead to declare Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Area Act, 1996 is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. It is seen from the array of respondents in these writ petitions, the Commercial Tax Department is not made as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Since a challenge is made to the validity of insistence of production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department, in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, we are of the view, the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, would also be a necessary and proper party in these writ petitions for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in these writ petitions. We, therefore, suo-motu implead the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as one of the respondents in these writ petitions. Implead petitions which are filed in these writ petitions are also ordered.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. We have also heard the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes who advanced arguments on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department justifying the collection of entry tax in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1996.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. On behalf of the respondents, learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes submits that though the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment, the State is entitled to bring out any legislation for safeguarding the interests of State Revenue by virtue of Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and therefore, pleaded that any provisions of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Legislature enacted the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 with the sole object that the State Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles purchased and brought from other states, Entry Tax Act was introduced in the year 1987 on certain items and subsequently Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles was also introduced to arrest tax evasion. It is submitted that for registration of the vehicles brought inside the State of Andhra Pradesh which were purchased outside the State, the procedure contemplated under Section 39 has to be followed by every purchaser of vehicle. As provided under Section 45 of the Act, the registering authorities can refuse registration of the vehicles if the conditions contemplated thereunder are not complied with. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that insistence of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicle is another condition imposed by the State Legislature by a separate enactment called as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Area Act, 1996 and therefore, it cannot be said that Section 23 of the said Act is repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a>. It is also pleaded that if two enactments are made, one by Parliament and another by the State Legislature on the same subject under List III i.e., concurrent list, if any provisions of the enactment brought out by the State Legislature overrides the provisions of the Central Legislation on the same subject, then only, the doctrine of repugnancy can be invoked. However in these cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, as the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into the Local Areas Act, 1996 is enacted by the State Legislature as per Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and not under List III which is a concurrent list, the provisions of the said Act cannot be termed as repugnant to Sections 39 or 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> as these two enactments are brought out under two different Entries and two different Lists. Learned Government Pleader, therefore, submits no valid reasons are stated by the writ petitioners for issuance of a direction as sought for and sought for dismissal of these writ petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. In order to appreciate these contentions, it would be appropriate to extract certain provisions of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act).',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Section 39 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides for registration which reads thus :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>39. Necessity for registration:- 'No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. Sections 40 and 41 indicates the place and mode of registration of a vehicle. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the registering authority to refuse registration or renewal of a certificate which reads thus :',
	(int) 12 => '<p>45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration: The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.' ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>11. Coming to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996, this enactment was enacted with the following objects and reasons, viz.,',
	(int) 14 => '<p>STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> It is observed that proper tax is not being realized by the State on all the Motor Vehicles which are being used in Andhra Pradesh. Many vehicles are purchased at low tax in the neighbouring States and brought and used in the State. Since no sales took place within our State the Government is not getting any revenue on such vehicles. To overcome such problem, neighbouring States like, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have introduced Entry Tax on Motor Vehicles and in Karnataka it is being levied on all the commodities except 35 specified items. Entry Tax was introduced in our State in the year 1987 on Textiles, Tobacco and Sugar and it was subsequently withdrawn from 1st April, 1990. It is decided to levy Entry tax on Motor Vehicles only to arrest tax evasion. The rate of tax on the local sales on motor vehicles is increased from 4% to 8% on the first sales and Entry Tax is levied at the rate of 8%. Entry Tax is not leviable if the motor vehicles suffer tax under local Sales Tax Act. The levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is therefore mainly meant to plug the leakage of revenue. To achieve the above object, Government have decided to enact, a separate law for the purpose. ' ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>12. Section 3 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 enables levy of tax by the competent authority. Section 4 of the Act provides that wherever there is necessity to reduce the tax liability, the authorities are entitled to reduce such tax liability if tax is paid under the General Sales Tax Act. The other important provision under the said Act which is relevant for adjudicating the issue involved in these writ petitions is Section 23 which imposes restriction on registration of a vehicle and it reads thus:',
	(int) 17 => '<p>23. Restriction on registration:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the liability to pay tax in respect of a motor vehicle arises under this Act, and such motor vehicle is required to be registered in the State under the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), no registration authority shall register such motor vehicle, unless payment of such tax has been made by the person concerned in respect of that vehicle.'',
	(int) 18 => '<p>13. Undoubtedly, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is a State enactment. The former Act is legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution whereas the latter enactment is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of VII Schedule. When the State Legislature is competent to enact any law under Entry 52of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such legislation is an independent enactment. It is though contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the registration authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act shall be competent to refuse registration if the conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act are not fulfilled but failure to produce tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department in terms of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is not one of the requirements to be fulfilled for refusal of registration as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and as such the provisions of Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are repugnant to Section 45 of the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act 59 of 1988), it is difficult for us to appreciate this contention. As already stated, the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> is a central enactment legislated by the Parliament under Entry 30 of List I of Schedule VII whereas the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 is legislated under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Therefore, these two enactments are legislated under two different entries and under two different lists.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the doctrine of repugnancy in K.S.E. BOARD Vs . INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY : [1976]1SCR552 , at para-11 held thus :',
	(int) 20 => '<p>'........If the impugned legislation falls under List III then the question of repugnancy of that legislation with the existing law or the law made by the Parliament, as the case may be will have to be considered. Both the 1910 Act as well as the 1948 Act are existing law as contemplated under Article 372 of the Constitution. An existing law continues to be valid even though the legislative power with respect to the subject matter of the existing law might be in a different list under the Constitution from the list under which it would have fallen under the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>. But after the Constitution came into force an existing law could be amended or repealed only by the legislature which would be competent to enact that law if it were to be newly enacted. In that sense both the 1910 Act and the 1948 Act could be amended or repealed by the Parliament and also by the State Legislature if it obtains the President ialassent to an Act amending or repealing the 1910 Act or 1948 Act (leaving aside for the moment the question whether they fall wholly or partly under Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That the question of repugnancy can arise only with reference to a legislation falling under the concurrent List is now well settled. In A.S. Krishnan v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 399) after referring to Section 107 of the <a>Government of India Act, 1935</a>, which is in terms similar to clause (1) of Article 254, this Court observed : 'For this section to apply, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) The provisions of the provincial law and those of the Central legislation must both be in respect of a matter which is enumerated in the Concurrent List, and (2) they must be repugnant to each other. It is only when both these requirements are satisfied that the provincial law will to the extent of the repugnancy become void.' ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>15. From the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, it is clear that under the concurrent list, both the State and Centre are competent to enact laws. If a legislation is enacted by both the State and the Centre on the same subject matter and if any provision of such legislation enacted by the State has an overriding effect on the Central legislation, then the question of would arise and not otherwise. As discussed by us, since the <a>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> (Central Act No.59 of 1988) and the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 are separate and independent enacted by the Parliament and State Legislature respectively, under two different Entries and two different Lists, the provisions under Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 cannot be held to be repugnant to the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988). As long as the State Legislature is competent to legislate an enactment under Entry 52 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, such enactment shall be termed as an independent enactment. As indicated, Section 23 of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 imposes a restriction on the registering authorities not to register a vehicle which is purchased outside the State and brought within the State unless entry tax has been paid in respect of such vehicle. This provision cannot be said to be repugnant to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988) inasmuch as the said provision is only intended to plug the leakage of revenue as the State is not getting any revenue on the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and brought into the State. Therefore, in order to arrest tax evasion, as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the said Act, such legislation is enacted. The levy of tax under Section 3 of the said Act is only compensatory in nature to obviate the loss of revenue to the State as the vehicle was purchased outside the State and the purchasers avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax, which they are obliged to pay if the vehicle had been purchased within the State. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act come into conflict with the provisions under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act No.59 of 1988).',
	(int) 22 => '<p>16. The State of Maharashtra enacted a legislation similar to that of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act which is known as the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987. Section 3 of the said Act provided for levy of collection of tax on the purchase value of motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein and which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 at such rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government but not exceeding the rate prescribed for motor vehicles in the Schedules appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act or fifteen paise in the rupee whichever is less. Section 3 of the said Act was questioned before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by the affected owners of motor vehicles on various grounds. The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the provisions under Section 3 of the said Act. Later, the matter was carried by the affected vehicle owners to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the validity of Section 3 of the said Act held in SHAKTIKUMAR M. SANCHETI AND ANOTHERVs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (1995 STC Volume 96 page 659) that the said Legislation was enacted in order to compensate the loss of revenue by purchasers who avoided payment of sales tax or purchase tax which would be payable if the vehicles had been purchased within the State and by purchasing it in another State where the rate of tax was lower and bringing the vehicle inside the State.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>17. As is seen from the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), it cannot be held that insistence for production of tax clearance certificate at the time of registration of the vehicles purchased outside the State, by the registering authorities is improper. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHAKTIKUMAR's case (cited supra), in our view, is a complete answer to all the queries, related and unrelated, posed by the counsel representing various writ petitioners.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>18. For all these reasons, we find no merits in these writ petitions and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>19. Immediately after dictating the judgment in the open Court, the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submitted that while admitting the batch of writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court had granted interim direction to the respondents not to insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department from these petitioners and directed the registering authorities to register the vehicles and as a result of this direction, most of the petitioners who are the owners of vehicles, having obtained interim orders from this Court though have got the vehicles registered, but have not paid the entry tax as required by them under Section 3 of the A.P. Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996. It is also stated that the interim order of the Division Bench in all these writ petitions was to the effect that the registering authority shall not insist for production of tax clearance certificate from the Commercial Tax Department at the time of registration of the vehicle but there was no order staying the payment of entry tax by the writ petitioners. It is stated, as a result of non-payment of entry tax, substantial revenue which the State could have got by way of entry tax is lost. It is pleaded that necessary permission be accorded to the Government for recovery of entry tax. If that be so, we take a serious view of the matter as there was no stay insofar as payment of entry tax is concerned. In this background, we give liberty to the Commercial Tax Department to recover entry tax in accordance with law in respect of the vehicles of these petitioners. We also direct the first respondent and the regional transport authorities concerned to render all necessary assistance to the Commercial Tax Department by furnishing the details of the vehicles which are purchased outside the State and are registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, enabling the Commercial Tax Department to recover the entry tax according to law.',
	(int) 26 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 27
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Motor Vehicles;Other Taxes
Court	Andhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On	Aug-21-2002
Case Number	W.P. Nos. 8642 and 11616 of 1998, 4156 of 1999, 26005 of 2000, 2309, 14582, 17199, 17283, 18054, 185
Judge	Motilal B. Naik and ;Dalava Subrahmanyam, JJ.
Reported in	2003(1)ALT620
Acts	Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 3, 23, 39, 40, 41 and 45; Local Areas Act, 1996; General Sales Tax Act; Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 107; Local Areas Act, 1987 - Sections 3
Appellant	Transport Corporation of India
Respondent	The Transport Commissioner and anr.
Appellant Advocate	B. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	Govt. Pleader
Disposition	Writ petitions dismissed

Transport Corporation of India Vs. the Transport Commissioner and anr. - Court Judgment