“No Repugnancy With Central Act”: Supreme Court Upholds Sections 4(7),4(8) & 15 Of Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976

Case: All Kerala Distributors Association vs State of Kerala

Coram: Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and CT Ravikumar

Case No.: CA 4502 OF 2009

Court Observation: “The State enactments do not create any new liability or obligation in relation to the permit issued under the 1988 Act (Central legislation), but it provides for dispensation to ensure timely collection of the welfare fund contribution as well as vehicle tax payable by the same vehicle owner/permit-holder”

“Indisputably, the permit issued by the Authority is hedged with conditions including the condition of regular payment of vehicle tax. Section 15 provides for the consequences for nonpayment of tax consistent with Sections 10 and 11 of the 1976 Act. Thus understood, there is no occasion for conflict between the two provisions much less repugnancy”

“The liability of the vehicle owner/permit-holder to pay welfare fund contribution as well as to pay vehicle tax arises under the legislation enacted by the State Legislature. As such, there is nothing wrong in State Legislature making it compulsory to pay outstanding welfare fund contribution first before accepting the vehicle tax which had become due and payable”

A priori, we have no hesitation in concluding that the provisions of the 1976 Act and the 1985 Act, enacted by the State Legislature, are only intended to ensure that the vehicle owner/permit-holder does not remain in arrears of either the welfare fund contribution or the vehicle tax both payable under the State enactments. These provisions are in no way in conflict with the law made by the Parliament (1988 Act). The State enactments do not create any new liability or obligation in relation to the permit issued under the 1988 Act (Central legislation), but it provides for dispensation to ensure timely collection of the welfare fund contribution as well as vehicle tax payable by the same vehicle owner/permit-holder.

Previous Posts

Writ Of Mandamus Not A Remedy Against Private Wrongs, Court Cannot Interfere With Private Body’s Internal Management: Delhi HC

Consent Obtained For Sex In Second Marriage Without Disclosing First Marriage Prima Facie Constitutes Rape: Bombay High Court

J&K&L High Court Orders Probe On Father’s Plea Alleging Killing Of Minor Son In Staged Encounter By Indian Army In 1995

Order 18 Rule 1 CPC: Defendant May Be Asked To Lead Evidence First If Case Set Up By It Is Such That Proving It Would Decide All Issues In Suit: Delhi High Court

In Event Of Doubt Over Correctness Of Answer Key, Benefit Must Be Given To Exam Authority & Not Candidate: Tripura High Court

Writ Jurisdiction To Be Exercised In Circumspection, Can’t Displace Authority’s Order By Merely Taking Another Opinion On Same Material: Delhi HC

A Relief For Which No Prayer Or Pleading Was Made Should Not Be Granted: Supreme Court

Mother Can Give Surname Of Second Husband To Child After Death Of Biological Father: Supreme Court

Keywords

No Repugnancy With Central Act, Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act