The petitioner who had purchased an Excavator vehicle for use in the construction industry, challenges the levy of one time tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, on construction equipment vehicles. In the writ petition, the challenge is essentially against the quantum of tax that is sought to be levied as one time tax on the vehicle in question. A reference is made to Section 3 Clause (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act and Rules to contend that the increase in tax, from that prevailing in the previous years, could not have been in excess of 50% of the erstwhile rate of tax. It is pointed out that earlier the vehicle attracted tax, under the Schedule to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, at the rate of Rs.1,210/- whereas, the one time tax that is sought to be levied under the Act is at 6% of the purchase value of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, this is grossly exorbitant and would be hit by the provisions of Section 3 Clause (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976. It is also his contention that the vehicle in question is not one that is normally understood as a Motor Vehicle in common or commercial parlance and hence there was no justification for including this vehicle under the Act for the purposes of levy of one time tax.
2. I have heard Sri.P.N.D.Namboothiri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The challenge in the writ petition is essentially against the amendments brought about to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, through the Kerala Finance Act, 2010 whereby the 2nd proviso under Section 3(1) was substituted so as to make provision for the levy of one time tax at the rate specified in Annexure -1 to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. By virtue of the said amendment, a separate annexure was incorporated in the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, to enumerate the vehicles in respect of which, a one time tax would be levied. In the said annexure, among the class of vehicles on which one time tax was contemplated, construction equipment vehicles were also included. No doubt, a construction equipment vehicle is treated as a non- transport vehicle under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. This however, cannot be a reason to impugn the levy of one time tax, as contemplated under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, since the legislation in question is a state enactment and the state legislature has a great latitude in picking and choosing the objects of taxation. The levy of one time tax having been introduced in the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, and a separate annexure having been incorporated therein to deal with the classes of vehicles on which the one time tax was to be levied, it will not be open to the petitioner to place reliance on the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act which deals with increase in the rate of tax specified in the Schedule to the Taxation Act. As already noted, the levy of one time tax, traces its validity to the 2nd proviso to Section 3(1) read with Annexure-1 that is incorporated and not to Section 3(2) and the Schedule to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Thus, in the absence of any valid grounds to challenge the legislative competence of the State legislature to impose a one time tax on classes of motor vehicles enumerated in the annexure, and in the absence of any grounds to suggest a violation of any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner, on account of the levy, the challenge against the validity of the levy must necessarily fail. The writ petition is therefore dismissed as devoid of any merit.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns