Case: Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd. Etc Vs. Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc

internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. 7. The argument of learned counsel was that a chassis as such could neither be used nor kept for use in a public place before a body was fitted to it and so long as the said step was not taken, the question of levy of tax under the Act would not arise. We were referred to the different meanings of the word use in the Oxford Dictionary some of which are as follows:- To make use of as a means or instrument; To employ for a profitable end: In our view, it is not necessary for a chassis to have a body attached to it before it can be used within the meaning of the Act inasmuch as it can be used by the man who drives it and such use of it on public roads would be enough to attract the levy. Ordinarily chassis have bodies attached to them for commercially profitable use but even without a body a chassis can be used and is actually used when it is taken over public roads. 8. The second submission was that the appellants qualified for exemption under the Government notification under the Government notification under Section 9 of the Act. Section 9 inter alia provides: (1) The Government may, by notification- (a) grant an exemption, make a reduction in the rate or order other modification not involving an enhancement in the rate of tax payable- (i) by any person or class of persons; or (ii) in respect of any motor vehicle or class of motor vehicles or motor vehicles running in any particular area; xx xx xx The notification issued an as follows: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (Andhra Pradesh Act 5 of 1963), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby grants exemption of the tax payable in respect of motor vehicles specified in column (1) of the table below subject to the conditions, if any, specified in column (2) thereof. Item (4) of the table reads: Any chassis of a motor vehicle the condition for exemption being: When driven to any place in order that a body may be attached to it. It was argued that as the use of a chassis would be meaningless unless a body is attached to it and all chassis, as a matter of fact, have to have bodies attached to them, the driving of the chassis on the road without a body would qualify for exemption under the above notification. We find ourselves unable to accept this view. Item (4) in the table of the above notification limits the exemption from the tax to the journey of the chassis for the express purpose of a body being attached to it. The Automotive Manufacturers being dealers can and do probably deal with or dispose of the chassis as such. There is no allegation in any of the two writ petitions filed by these appellants that the chassis were coming from Madras or Bombay for the purpose of having bodies attached to them at the workshop of the appellant. In so far as Ashok Leyland Ltd. is concerned, it is their positive case that the chassis were being driven through the State of Andhra Pradesh either for delivery there or in other States of India. They were certainly being driven along the roads of Andhra Pradesh for disposal at the Journeys end and it would be for the purchaser at the destination to have a body fixed to the chassis according to his own need and on the specification given by him. Merely because bodies were going to be attached by the ultimate purchasers, it cannot be said that the running of the chassis on the roads of Andhra Pradesh would attract exemption under Item (4) of the notification. 9. The last point urged by counsel was that inasmuch as registration of a vehicle in any State under Section 28 of the Motor Vehicles Act is to be effective throughout India any tax by a State on motor vehicles be they merely chassis or otherwise would run counter to Art. 301 of the Constitution according to which trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India is to be free subject to the other provisions of Part XIII. Under Art. 304 (b) however it is open to the Legislature of a State to impose such reasonable restruction on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that States as may be required in the public interest. This again is subject to the proviso that no Bill amendment for the purpose of the said cl. (b) is to be introduced in the State Legislature without the previous sanction of the President. Learned counsel wanted to urge that the impost was not saved by Article 304 (b) inter alia, on the ground that there was no previous sanction of the President in respect of the Bill as envisaged by Article 304 (b).We did not allow counsel to press the point inasmuch as it had not been urged in the writ petition and we hereby make it clear that we are not examining the merits of the contention urged by counsel in this regard and it will be open to his clients, if so advised, to urge it in any future proceedings they may choose to take. 10. These appeals were originally heard by a Bench of five Judges including S.C. Roy, J. who expired a few days back. The above judgment was concurred in by our late colleague. We however gave a further hearing to the parties at which nothing was addressed to us to make us change our opinion already formed.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]We find ourselves unable to accept this view. Item (4) in the table of the above notification limits the exemption from the tax to the journey of the chassis for the express purpose of a body being attached to it. The Automotive Manufacturers being dealers can and do probably deal with or dispose of the chassis as such. There is no allegation in any of the two writ petitions filed by these appellants that the chassis were coming from Madras or Bombay for the purpose of having bodies attached to them at the workshop of the appellant. In so far as Ashok Leyland Ltd. is concerned, it is their positive case that the chassis were being driven through the State of Andhra Pradesh either for delivery there or in other States of India. They were certainly being driven along the roads of Andhra Pradesh for disposal at the Journeys end and it would be for the purchaser at the destination to have a body fixed to the chassis according to his own need and on the specification given by him. Merely because bodies were going to be attached by the ultimate purchasers, it cannot be said that the running of the chassis on the roads of Andhra Pradesh would attract exemption under Item (4) of the notification10. These appeals were originally heard by a Bench of five Judges including S.C. Roy, J. who expired a few days back. The above judgment was concurred in by our late colleague. We however gave a further hearing to the parties at which nothing was addressed to us to make us change our opinion already formedIn our view, it is not necessary for a chassis to have a body attached to it before it can be used within the meaning of the Act inasmuch as it can be used by the man who drives it and such use of it on public roads would be enough to attract the levy. Ordinarily chassis have bodies attached to them for commercially profitable use but even without a body a chassis can be used and is actually used when it is taken over public roadsWe did not allow counsel to press the point inasmuch as it had not been urged in the writ petition and we hereby make it clear that we are not examining the merits of the contention urged by counsel in this regard and it will be open to his clients, if so advised, to urge it in any future proceedings they may choose to take.