AIR 2017 (NOC) 54 (KAR.) ::2016 (4) AKR 38 ::(2016) 6 Kant LJ 12

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Jayant Patel, B. V. Nagarathna , JJ

(A) Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (14 of 1977) S. 3 (1) — Levy of life time tax under — Registration of motor vehicle under S 39 or 47, M V Act, 1988 in State of Karnataka — Is sine qua non Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), Ss 39, 47 {" The registration of a motor vehicle in the State of Karnataka under S. 39 or S. 47 of the MV Act, 1988, as the case may be, is a sine qua non for the levy of tax under S. 3(1) of the Karnataka Act. This is because, Explanation- 1 r/w the note appended to S. 3(1) categorically refers to a vehicle possessing a certificate of registration, which current, for the purpose of levy of tax under S. 3(1) of the Act by a deeming provision or fiction. AIR 1987 SC 1911, Foll. (Para 24,49) "}

(B) Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (14 of 1977) S. 3 (1), Explanation 2 (as inserted in 2014) — Validity — Levy of lifetime tax on vehicle — Explanation 2 to S 3(1) is only clarificatory of what is stated in S 3(1) — Not illegal merely because of its form {" The amendment made to the Act by insertion of Explanation 2 to S. 3(1) of the Act is only to clarify what has been stated in S. 3(1) of the Act and the said clarification pursuant to the dictum of the High Court in Mahesh Gandhi— s case 2005 AIR — Kant HCR 2140 in the form of an Explanation per se cannot be held to be illegal. Therefore, the form of the amendment to S. 3(1) of the Act, which is in the form of Explanation- 2 is not invalid. (Para 31,49) "}

(C) Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (14 of 1977) S. 3 (1), Explanation 2 (as inserted in 2014) — Validity — Levy of lifetime tax — Vehicles registered outside coming to State of Karnataka — Explanation 2 intending to levy tax on said vehicles remaining in State of Karnataka for period exceeding thirty days — Is in total disregard of S 47 of M V Act, 1988 — Thus violative of Art 246(3) of Constitution and S 47 of M V Act, 1988 — Non obstante clause in Explanation, not taking away basis of High Court decision in 2005 AIR — Kant HCR 2140 — Not of consequence Constitution of India, Art 246(3), Sch 7, List 3, Entry 35 {" In order to have an enabling provision under the Act, Explanation ' “ 2 to S.3 (1) has been inserted which also expressly refers to vehicles registered outside the Karnataka. An Explanation to a charging section is a legislative device which can be adopted in order to clarify the charging section. Therefore, the insertion of Explanation-2 per se is not invalid or illegal. But what makes Explanation ' “ 2 to S. 3(1) vulnerable is the fact that the said explanation is in blatant violation of (i) the provisions of the MV Act, 1988, which is a Central enactment and (ii) the judgment of the High Court 2005 AIR Kant — HCR 2140. Therefore in it is not a valid piece of legislation. Firstly because Explanation -2 cannot be in total disregard of the MV Act, 1938 which is a Central enactment tho....