Civil Appeal No 272 of 1970
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 14 4 1969 of the Mysore High Court in WP No 288967
R N Nath and M Veerappa for the Appellant
2 M Natesan and Mrs section Gopalakrishnan for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA J
Whether a motor vehicle passing through the territory of the State of Mysore on way to its destination in another State is a motor vehicle kept in the State of Mysore now Karnataka within the contemplation of Section 31 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Taxation Act is the short question that falls for consideration in this appeal by special leave directed against a judgment dated April 14 1969 of the High Court of Mysore
The material facts bearing on the question are as follows  The respondent Ms T V Sundaram Iyengar  Sons
Pvt Ltd whose registered office is in the State of Tamil Nadu is a dealer in motor vehicles which are manufactured at Bombay
Some of those vehicles are sold in Mysore State while others are sold outside Mysore State
But those vehicles which are sold outside the State of Mysore in other States pass through its territory under temporary registration number plates issued after receipt of token tax by the Bombay Motor Vehicles Authority
Such vehicles enter the State of Mysore at its border in Belgaum District and go out at its border in Kolar District thus running through the territory of Mysore State by road over a distance of about 400 miles
The RTO Belgaum issued a communication dated September 27 1966 to the respondent demanding tax on such vehicles new cars and chassis passing through the territory of Mysore
After exhausting his remedies under the Taxation Act the respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of the demand notices and the Circular dated October 10 1966 issued by the Transport Commissioner directing recovery of tax at the rates specified in Part of the Schedule to the Taxation Act in respect of those vehicles which do no more than pass through the State of Mysore to reach their destination
The Division Bench of the High Court who heard the writ petition held that such vehicles which merely pass through Mysore State are not those kept in the State of Mysore within the meaning of Section 32 of the Taxation Act
and as such are not taxable under the Taxation Act
In the result the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the direction of the Commissioner in paragraph 6 of his Circular of October 10 1966 for the recovery of the tax in question from the respondent
Hence
this appeal by the State
3 The material part of Section 3 reads as follows  section 3
Levy of tax 1 a tax at the rates specified in part A of the Schedule shall be levied on all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads kept in the State of Mysore Provided that in the case of motor vehicles kept by a dealer in or manufacturer of such vehicles for the purpose of trade the tax shall only be levied and paid by such dealer or manufacturer on vehicles permitted to be used on roads in the manner prescribed by rules made under the  Explanation
A motor vehicle of which the certificate of registration is current shall for the purpose of this Act be deemed to be a vehicle suitable for use on roads
2 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section 1 taxes at the rates specified in Part B of the Schedule shall be levied on motor vehicles belonging to or in the possession or control of persons not ordinarily residing in the State of Mysore and kept in the State of Mysore by such persons for periods shorter than a quarter but not exceeding thirty days
3         The appellant State maintains that sub section 2 of the Section was applicable to such vehicles because while passing through the territory of the State they use the roads of the State over a distance of 400 miles during their journey interspersed by halts in the State and therefore it can be said that such vehicles are kept for use on roads in the State within the meaning of Section 32
According to the learned counsel for the appellant the test of whether a vehicle is exigible to tax under Section 32 is whether it is suitable for use on roads and in fact substantially uses the roads in the State of Mysore
In the present case the argument proceeds this test was satisfied because for an appreciable period such vehicles remain in the territory of the State and use its roads and as such are taxable under sub section 2 of Section 3
The contention does not stand a close examination
Sub section 2 is to be read with sub section 1
Thus read it is plain that in order to be taxable under the Section a Motor vehicle must be capable of use on road and further it must be kept in the State of Mysore though in the case of vehicles belonging to persons not resident in the State the duration of such keeping  may be for a 4 period shorter than a quarter but not exceeding thirty days
In the present case there is no dispute that the vehicles concerned are capable of use on roads and in fact they journey by road through the State
The problem thus resolves itself into the issue  Whether the motor vehicles of the respondent which merely pass through the State of Mysore are kept  for the duration of their journey in the State of Mysore within the meaning of Section 32  In our opinion the High Court has rightly answered this question in the negative
The word kept  has not been defined in the Taxation Act
We have therefore to interpret it in its ordinary popular sense consistently with the context
The word kept  has been repeatedly used in the Section
In sub section 1 it occurs in association with the phrase for use on roads
In that context the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word keep in  is to retain  to maintain  or cause to stay or remain in a place to detain  to stay or continue in a specified condition position etc  In association with the use of the vehicle therefore the word kept  has an element of stationariness
It is something different from a mere state of transit or a course of journey through the State
It is something more than a mere stoppage or halt for rest food or refreshment etc in the course of transit through the territory of the State
The unsoundness of the contention of the appellant s counsel viz that a vehicle capable for use on roads owned by a non resident remaining for one or two days in the territory of Mysore State in course of transit will also be exigible to tax under section 3 can be demonstrated by taking an example
Supposing the respondents take their vehicles capable for use on road by rail through the territory of Mysore State to their outside destination and in the course of that journey the train halts for a week in all at stations in Mysore State then if the wide interpretation demanded by the appellant is adopted such vehicles will be exigible to tax
This indeed will be an absurd result
Such an interpretation of the word kept  will be wholly beyond the ken of the Legislature
In the view we take we can derive support from two decisions of the English Courts
In Dudley vs Holland1 the appellant carried on a garage business adjoining a public road
He had bought a motor car in the course of 5 his business and was offering for sale in the garage showroom
He moved that car into the public road in order to allow the showroom to be rearranged
There was no excise licence in force for the car
It was found there by a police constable
The appellant was charged with unlawfully keeping on a public road a mechanically propelled vehicle for which an excise licence was not in force contrary to Section 7 of the Vehicles Excise Act 1962
The question for the opinion of the Court was whether the mere presence of a stationary mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road constitutes keeping the vehicle on the road within the meaning of Section 7 of the Vehicles Excise Act 1962
Lord Parker CJ who delivered the leading judgment of the Court answered this question in the negative in these terms I approach the word keeps  in what seems to me the ordinary meaning of some continuing process not a mere isolated moment but a keeping of the car there at any rate for some interval of time
It is no doubt a matter of degree and fact in every case
In my judgment keeping  means something more than that both according to its ordinary meaning and when it appears in conjunction with the other word uses 
 The principle is applicable to the present case
A mere state of running through or even halting of the vehicle in the course of the journey through the State of Mysore for its outside destination will not be sufficient to constitute keeping  of that vehicle in the State within the meaning of Section 3
The other case is Biggs vs Mitchell1 The ratio of this case has been extracted in words and Phrases Legally Defined Vol 3 at page 116
In Biggs vs Mitchell the interpretation of the word keep  as used in Section 11 of Statute 1772 12 Geo
3 c 61 came up for consideration
That Section enacted that no person or persons should have or keep  at any one time being a dealer or dealers in gunpowder more than 200 lb of gunpowder and not being such more than 50 lb of gunpowder in any house mill etc occupied by the same person or persons within certain limits
The question before the Court was whether a person who receives powder in the course of transit and makes a necessary halt instead of sending it on immediately can be said to be keeping  the same within the meaning of Section 11
Crompton J answered this question thus 6 It seems to me that it is not made out that the mere halting in London for the purpose of sending from one railway to another when it is necessary that there should be halting in some place or other is a keeping  I think there can be no keeping within section 11 when it is in course of transit On parity of reasoning a vehicle in transit through the State of Mysore or even making a necessary halt for a short interval during transit cannot be said to be a vehicle kept  for use on roads in the State of Mysore
In the light of all that has been said above we uphold the interpretation put by the High Court on Section 3 of the Taxation Act and answer the question posed at the commencement of this judgment in the negative and dismiss this appeal leaving the parties to pay and bear their own costs in this Court
PBR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent bought new cars and chassis manufactured in Bombay and brought them by road
In the course of their journey from Bombay to Madras the vehicles passed through the territory of the State of Mysore for over 400 miles
The Road Transport Authorities of the State of Mysore demanded payment of road tax on the vehicles under section 32 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1957 which provides that taxes are leviable on motor vehicles belonging to or in the possession or control of persons not ordinarily resident in the State of Mysore and kept in the State for periods shorter than a quarter but not exceeding thirty days
Allowing the respondent s writ petition the High Court held that vehicles which passed through the State were not kept in the State within the meaning of section 32 of the Act and so were not taxable under it
In appeal to this court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the vehicles passing through the territory of the State over a distance of 400 miles with halts on the way could be said to have been kept for use on loads in the State within the meaning of the section and were therefore taxable
Dismissing the appeal  HELD  A vehicle in transit through the State of Mysore or even making necessary halt for short intervals during transit cannot be said to be a vehicle kept for use on roads in the State of Mysore
6 B C The word kept which has not been defined in the Act has to be interpreted in its ordinary popular sense consistent with the context
In association with the use of the vehicle the word kept has an element of stationeries which is something different from a state of transit or a course of journey through the State
A mere state of running through or even halting of the vehicle in the course of the journey through the State for its outside destination will not be sufficient to constitute keeping of that vehicle in the State within the meaning of section 32
4 C E  5 E Dudley vs Holland  Biggs vs Mitchell  referred to