Case: Cantonment Board, Mhow, Saugor and Another Vs. M.P State Road Transport Corpn, Rewa Transport Services, Rewa

India Act. 1935 was under consideration. The Entry in question was to the effect:- "taxes on luxury or entertainment or amusement" It was contended before the Court that the tax in question was really a tax imposed for the privilege of carrying on any trade or calling under Entry 46 and, therefore, the same cannot exceed Rs.100 per a nnum as provided under Section 142A of the Government of India Act 1935 and Rs.250 per a nnum under Article 276(2) of the Constitution. The Court repelling the argument held:- "The entry contemplates luxuries, entertainment, and amusements as objects on which the tax is to be imposed. If the words are to be so regarded , as we think they must, there can be no reason to differentiate between the given and the receiver of the luxuries, entertainments or amusements and both may, with equal propriety, be made amenable to the tax. It is true that economists regards an entertainment, it does become a tax on expenditure, entertainments or amusements . The entry, as we have said, contemplates a law with respect to these matters regarded as objects and a law which imposes tax on the act of entertaining is within the entry whether it falls on the giver or receiver of that entertainment. Nor is the impugned tax a tax imposed for the privilege of carrying on any trade or calling." * 14. Thus considered, the tax leviable on Motor Vehicles when used or kept for use under section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor vehicles Taxation Act is different from the tax leviable on Motor Vehicles. Entering the limits of the Municipality under Section 127(1) (iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and there is no repugnancy between the two and both the provisions can therefore operate in its own field. Since under Section 127(1)(iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipality Act, Municipality could levy a tax on Motor Vehicles entering the limits of the Municipality, the same could be levied by the Cantonment Board in exercise of its power under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government . Consequently, notifications issued by the Cantonment Boards of Mhow, Jabalpur and Saugar were valid notifications issued under section 60 of the cantonments Act and imposition of tax on motor Vehicles entering into the limits of the Cantonment Boards cannot be said to be invalid or inoperative. The High court in our opinion committed error in striking down those notifications on the ground of repugnancy with this special legislation, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. 15. So far as the contention of Mr. Lekhi, the learned senior counsel with regard to the proviso to Section 7 of the Taxation Act is concerned, we however, do not find any force in the same in asmuchas Section 7 deals with the grant to the local authorities and it provides that if a grant was being paid by the state Government to any such Board or Committee immediately before the commencement of the Taxation Act then the said grant shall be continued to be paid. But the Cantonment Board by virtue of the Proviso will not be entitled to receive the said grant unless it agrees not to recover any tax, toll or licence in respect of th e Motor Vehicles. In other words, Section 7 and proviso thereto deals with right of the Cantonment Board and the Municipality to receive a grant which was being paid by the state Government prior to the commencement of the Taxation Act and t he said provision has no connection with the imposition of tax on Motor Vehicle Which is governed by section 3 (2) and the bar on such imposition which is contained in Section 6 of the Taxation Act. In this view of the matter , we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Lekhi, the learned senior counsel that conjoint reading of section 6 and 7 and its proviso would lead to the conclusion that even under the Taxation Act a Cantonment Board was entitled to impose tax on Motor Vehicles used or kept for use notwithstanding the bar under Section 6.Coming to the conclusion of the applicability of doctrine of desuetude Mr. Lekhi, the learned senior counsel strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and another vs. Bharat forge Company Ltd. and other and submitted that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act must be held to be of disuse as no grant as provided in Section 7 of the Taxation Act has ever been made at any point of time after the enactment of the said Act in 1947. This contention is wholly unsustainable in law in asmuchas we are not concerned with the question of grant to local authorities and Cantonment Board as provided under Section 7 of the Taxation Act but we are concerned with the leviability of tax on Motor Vehicles under Section 3(2) of the Taxation Act. it is nobodys case that no tax was being levied on Motor Vehicles which is used or kep t for use under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act , 1947. That apart to apply the principle of desuetude it is necessary to establish that the state in question has been in disuse for long and the contrary practic e of some duration gas evolved. In other words to make the aforesaid principle applicable in the case in hand it is required to be established that the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act has been in disuse for a long period and that the imposition of tax on entry of Motor Vehicles into the Cantonment limit has been in operation for a fairly long period. Neither of these two ingredients has been satisfied in the case in hand and therefore the aforesaid principle of desuetude is of no application to the case in hand. 16.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]As has been stated earlier under the Taxation Act, Tax could be imposed on the Motor Vehicles which is used or Kept for use as provided in Section 3(2) of the said Act and there is no provision for imposition of tax on vehicles which is neither used nor kept for use but for mere entry into any municipal limits . When the legislatures imposed a ban on levy of tax by any local authority under section 6 of the Taxation Act what is prohibited is levy of tax which is leviable under section 3(2) of the Taxation Act. When the same legislature enacted the Municipalities to impose tax on vehicles entering the limits of the Municipality under Section 127 (1)(iii) they must be presumed to be aware of the pro visions of the Taxation Act and leviability of the tax thereunder in respect of Motor Vehicles used or kept for use. The expression `vehicle having been defined in Section 2(38) to include a bicycle, a tricycle, motor car and ever wheel conveyance which is used or capable of being used on a public street, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents to interpret the same expression to mean vehicles other than the `motor vehicles. Since the Taxation Act does not provide for any imposition of tax on entry of the Motor vehicles within Municipal limits whereas the municipal Act authorises for such levy under Section 127(1)(iii) we do not find any inconsistency or repugnancy between the two provisions. In other words while under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act a tax could be imposed on Motor Vehicles used or kept for use by the registering authority including the Municipalities under section 127(1)(iii) of the Municipalities Act. But so far as the imposition of tax motor Vehicle entering into the Municipal limits is concerned, which is provided under section 127(1)(iii), of the Municipalities Act the said provisions cannot be said to be repugnant to the special statute in respect of Motor Vehicles, namely the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. It has been stated by this court in the case of Ashoka Marketing ltd. And another etc. etc. vs, Punjab National Bank and others etc. etc. that the principal of statutory interpretation, namely, later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws is subject to exception that a general provision does not derogate from a special one. This would mean that where a literal meaning of the general enactment covers a situation for which specific provision is made by another enactment contained in the earlier Act, it is presumed that the situation was intended to be continued to be dealt with by the specific provision rather than the later general one. in other words if the Taxation Act would have contained a provision authorising imposition of Entry Tax on Motor Vehicle than certainly the later general Act, namely the municipalities Act even if by making a provision of imposition of entry tax on Vehicles entering in to the Municipal limits would not have operated. But since the special law, namely, the Taxation Act does not have any provision authorising imposition of tax on entry of Motor Vehicles. The said provision would remain valid and would be applicable and there would be no bar for the municipality to impose entry tax on all vehicles including Motor Vehicles including Motor Vehicles for entering in to the limits of the Municipalities. This Construction being the only harmonious construction by which both the provisions remain operative it is the duty of the court adopt such construction. There is no dispute with the proposition advanced by Mr . Lekhi, learned senior counsel with regard to theory of implied repeal.This theory the learned the senior counsel advanced since the Municipalities Act did not repeal the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Taxation ActBut in view of our conclusion that there is no repugnancy between Section 3 read with Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and the provisions of Section 127(1)(iii) of the Municipalities Act and both the provisions operate in two different fields the principle of implied repeal will have no application. In the connection it would be appropriate for us to notice one decision of this court in the Case of The Western India Theatres Ltd. vs. The Cantonment Board, Poona, Cantonment, where the validity of levy of entertainment tax under Entry 50 in Schedule VII of the Government of India Act. 1935 was under considerationThus considered, the tax leviable on Motor Vehicles when used or kept for use under section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor vehicles Taxation Act is different from the tax leviable on Motor Vehicles. Entering the limits of the Municipality under Section 127(1) (iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and there is no repugnancy between the two and both the provisions can therefore operate in its own field. Since under Section 127(1)(iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipality Act, Municipality could levy a tax on Motor Vehicles entering the limits of the Municipality, the same could be levied by the Cantonment Board in exercise of its power under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government . Consequently, notifications issued by the Cantonment Boards of Mhow, Jabalpur and Saugar were valid notifications issued under section 60 of the cantonments Act and imposition of tax on motor Vehicles entering into the limits of the Cantonment Boards cannot be said to be invalid or inoperative. The High court in our opinion committed error in striking down those notifications on the ground of repugnancy with this special legislation, namely, the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation ActSo far as the contention of Mr. Lekhi, the learned senior counsel with regard to the proviso to Section 7 of the Taxation Act is concerned, we however, do not find any force in the same in asmuchas Section 7 deals with the grant to the local authorities and it provides that if a grant was being paid by the state Government to any such Board or Committee immediately before the commencement of the Taxation Act then the said grant shall be continued to be paid. But the Cantonment Board by virtue of the Proviso will not be entitled to receive the said grant unless it agrees not to recover any tax, toll or licence in respect of th e Motor Vehicles. In other words, Section 7 and proviso thereto deals with right of the Cantonment Board and the Municipality to receive a grant which was being paid by the state Government prior to the commencement of the Taxation Act and t he said provision has no connection with the imposition of tax on Motor Vehicle Which is governed by section 3 (2) and the bar on such imposition which is contained in Section 6 of the Taxation Act. In this view of the matter , we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Lekhi, the learned senior counsel that conjoint reading of section 6 and 7 and its proviso would lead to the conclusion that even under the Taxation Act a Cantonment Board was entitled to impose tax on Motor Vehicles used or kept for use notwithstanding the bar under Section 6.Coming to the conclusion of the applicability of doctrine of desuetude Mr. Lekhi, the learned senior counsel strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and another vs. Bharat forge Company Ltd. and other and submitted that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act must be held to be of disuse as no grant as provided in Section 7 of the Taxation Act has ever been made at any point of time after the enactment of the said Act in 1947. This contention is wholly unsustainable in law in asmuchas we are not concerned with the question of grant to local authorities and Cantonment Board as provided under Section 7 of the Taxation Act but we are concerned with the leviability of tax on Motor Vehicles under Section 3(2) of the Taxation Act. it is nobodys case that no tax was being levied on Motor Vehicles which is used or kep t for use under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act , 1947. That apart to apply the principle of desuetude it is necessary to establish that the state in question has been in disuse for long and the contrary practic e of some duration gas evolved. In other words to make the aforesaid principle applicable in the case in hand it is required to be established that the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act has been in disuse for a long period and that the imposition of tax on entry of Motor Vehicles into the Cantonment limit has been in operation for a fairly long period. Neither of these two ingredients has been satisfied in the case in hand and therefore the aforesaid principle of desuetude is of no application to the case in hand.