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

The appellant in the first two appeals is the Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd., a dealeer, among other automobile equipment, of motor chassis, motor vehicles etc. received by it from manufacturers outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. The first appeal arises out of a writ petition against the levy in respect of motor chassis delivered to it by Ashok Leyland Ltd. of Madras. These chassis are said to be driven by transport contractors of the manufacturers themselves under temporary certificates of registration under the Motor Vehicles Act and delivered to the appellant at Secunderabad. The second appeal by the same appellant arises out of a writ petition challenging the levy on jeeps, jeep truck chassis, jeep station wagons of the manufacture of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. of Bombay, besides pick-up vans, scooters etc. from Bajaj Auto Ltd. of Poona. The scooters are carried to Secunderabad in lorries. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2182 of 1968 are Ashok Leyland Ltd. Madras who transport motor chassis by road from their factory at Ennore to dealers in various parts of India, State Transport Undertakings etc. According to their writ petition, these chassis have to traverse long distances in the State of Andhra Pradesh every month destined for delivery not only in the said State but also beyond the same. These chassis are driven from Ennore to their respective destinations in the several States under temporary certificates of registration obtained from the Madras State on payment of requisite tax in that behalf, such certificates of registration under Section 28 of the Motor Vehicles Act being effective throughout India2. The appellants case is that the levy is illegal and unconstitutional. The grounds urged in the writ petitions filed in the High Court inter alia are as follows:-1. Section 3 of the Act only authorises a levy of tax on a motor vehicle used or kept for use in a public place in the State. There can be no user or keeping for use of the chassis of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle unless a body is attached to it. In the case of vehicles other than chassis such user or keeping for use in a public place can only take place when they are put to the required user or kept for use by the customers for whom the vehicles are transported in the manner contemplated by the Motor Vehicles Act2. Section 9 of the Act exempts from payment of tax chassis of a motor vehicle driven to another place in order that a body may be attached to it. As the chassis are invariably driven to their respective destinations in order that bodies may be attached to them, they come directly under the notification of exemption issued by the State Government3. As the chassis or the vehicles are covered by temporary certificates of registration taken out by the manufacturers entitling transportation throughout the territory of India, the impugned levy operates as an impediment to the free trade and commerce of the petitioners in violation of Article 301 of the Constitution3. The High Court turned down all the contentions. Hence the appeals.

Reasoning:
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.