Holding

The State amendments are not repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; they are complementary and may be given effect without violating the central legislation.

Summary

The petitioners, a Kerala distributors association, challenged the constitutional validity of amendments to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (ss.4(7) and 4(8)), Section 15 of the same Act, and Section 8A of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Act, 1985, arguing that these provisions made the payment of welfare fund contributions a pre‑condition for the collection of vehicle tax and thus conflicted with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court examined the legislative competence of the State under Entries 56, 57 of List II and Entries 23, 24 of List III, and applied the repugnancy tests laid down in Deep Chand. It held that the 1988 Act does not regulate the manner of levy or collection of vehicle tax, a field left to the State, and that the State provisions merely restate the central mandate that a vehicle cannot be used without a valid permit and up‑to‑date tax. The amendments were found to be complementary, not contradictory, to the central legislation, and the requirement of producing a welfare‑fund receipt was deemed a permissible condition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court’s decision.

Issues considered

The constitutional validity of ss.4(7), 4(8) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976, Section 15 of that Act, and Section 8A of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Act, 1985.
Whether these State provisions are repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under Article 254 of the Constitution.
Whether the State has legislative competence to impose the welfare‑fund receipt condition for vehicle‑tax collection.
Whether presidential assent was required for the amendments in view of the overlapping entries in the Constitution’s Seventh Schedule.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 246, s. Article 254, s. Article 304(b)
Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Act, 1985s. 8A
Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976s. 15, s. 4(7), s. 4(8)
Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2005
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Subjects

constitutional validityrepugnancymotor vehicle taxwelfare fund contributionpermit effectivenessstate legislation vs central legislationlegislative competenceConcurrent ListVehicle tax collectionbootstrapping of liabilities

Judgment

[2022] 17 S.C.R. 971 971

ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, KOTTAYAM A
UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4502 of 2009)
JULY 27, 2022 B
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 – ss.4(7) , 4(8), 15
– Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Kerala
C
Motor Transport Worker’s Welfare Fund Act, 1985 – s.8A – Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 – Challenge to constitutional validity of ss.4(7) ,
4(8), 15, 1976 Act and s.8A , 1985 Act – Held: The 1988 Act does
not cover the field of the manner of levy of vehicle tax and collection
thereof – The same is covered by the State legislations – Considering
the scheme of the State legislations, it is incomprehensible to D
countenance the argument that the two provisions (of 1988 Act on
the one hand and of 1976 Act and 1985 Act on the other) are
inconsistent in any manner whatsoever – The State enactments are
complementary and can be given effect to without any disobedience
to the Central legislations – Neither the provisions of the 1985 Act
E
or the 1976 Act have the effect of interdicting the permit issued
under the 1988 Act – The real intent and purpose behind these
provisions is to restate the mandate stated in the 1988 Act that the
vehicle cannot be used on road without a valid permit and payment
of vehicle tax up to date – The provisions of the 1976 Act and the
1985 Act, enacted by the State Legislature are only intended to ensure F
that the vehicle owner/permit-holder does not remain in arrears of
either the welfare fund contribution or the vehicle tax both payable
under the State enactments – These provisions are in no way in
conflict with the law made by the Parliament (1988 Act) – The State
enactments do not create any new liability or obligation in relation
G
to the permit issued under the 1988 Act (Central legislation), but it
provides for dispensation to ensure timely collection of the welfare
fund contribution as well as vehicle tax payable by the same vehicle
owner/permit-holder – The stand taken by the writ petitioners
regarding the validity of the amended provisions being repugnant
to the law made by the Parliament is negatived. H
971
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A Constitution of India – Tests of repugnancy – Discussed.
Kerala Motor Transport Worker’s Welfare Fund Act, 1985 –
Objective of – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
B Held : 1.1 This Act had repealed the erstwhile Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939. The Parliament has obviously enacted the
1988 Act in reference to Entry 35 in List III – Concurrent List
which concerns the mechanically propelled vehicles including the
principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied.
Notably, the 1988 Act provides for procedure of Regional
C Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage
permit as predicated in Section 71 of the 1988 Act. The Authority
while considering an application for grant of a stage carriage
permit is obliged to have regard to the objects of the 1988 Act
including about the satisfactory performance of the applicant as a
D stage carriage operator and payment of tax [Section 71(3)(d)(ii)].
The other relevant provision for considering the subject-matter
of this appeal is Section 81 dealing with duration and renewal of
permits. It postulates that the permit issued by the Authority
under the Act shall be effective from the date of issuance or
renewal thereof for a period of five years. The proviso to sub-
E section (1) envisages that where the permit is countersigned
under sub-section (1) of Section 88, such countersignature shall
remain effective without renewal for such period so as to
synchronise with the validity of the primary permit. This Court is
not concerned with the effect of the proviso in the present case.
F The relevant sub-section dealing with the power of the Authority
to reject an application for the renewal of a permit is sub-section
(4) of Section 81. It provides for the grounds on which the renewal
of a permit can be rejected. The same includes plying any vehicle
without payment of tax due on such vehicle; and on any
unauthorised route. Besides these provisions, there is nothing
G in the 1988 Act to deal with the manner of levy of vehicle tax or
the collection thereof. In other words, the law made by the
Parliament does not occupy the field of manner of levy of vehicle
tax and collection thereof. If so, it is not possible to hold that
there is direct conflict between the two provisions, namely, in
H the law made by the Parliament and by the State Legislature.
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 973
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA

Furthermore, on analysing the legislative intent and the efficacy A
of the impugned provisions enacted by the State Legislature
concerning the manner of levy of vehicle tax and collection
thereof, it will be amply clear that obedience to each of the laws
(made by the Parliament and State Legislature) is possible without
disobeying the other. The Court shall elaborate on this aspect
B
while dealing with efficacy of the law made by the State Legislature
a little later. Suffice it to observe that the argument regarding
repugnancy is devoid of merit. [Para 34][1003-C-D; 1004-A-E;
1005-A]
1.2 As regards the 1976 Act enacted by the State
Legislature, the same is ascribable to Entries 56 and 57 of List C
II – State List. Entry 56 deals with taxes on goods and passengers
carried by road or on inland waterways. Entry 57 deals with taxes
on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for
use on roads, including tramcars subject to the provisions of Entry
35 of List III. In one sense, the law made by the State Legislature D
is also ascribable to Entry 35 of List III under which the Parliament
has already enacted 1988 Act. However, as aforementioned, the
law made by the Parliament, being 1988 Act, does not touch upon
or deal with the field of manner of levy of vehicle tax and collection
thereof. Whereas, the 1976 Act enacted by the State Legislature
is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the levy of tax on E
motor vehicles and on passengers and goods carried by such
vehicles in the State of Kerala. The levy of tax is spelt out in
Section 3 of this Act. Section 4 deals with payment of tax and
issue of licence. The writ petitioners have challenged the
amendment made to this provision vide Act 24 of 2005 inserting F
sub-sections (7) and (8) therein. By this amendment, it is provided
that every registered owner or person having possession or
control of a motor vehicle in respect of a motor transport
undertaking liable to pay contribution under the 1985 Act shall,
before effecting payment of vehicle tax under the 1976 Act,
produce before the Taxation Officer the receipt of remittance of G
the contribution towards welfare fund due upto the preceding
month and failure to do so, would entail in refusal to collect the
vehicle tax under the 1976 Act. In the context of this provision,
it has been urged that such a provision is in the nature of
bootstrapping of two different liabilities. Section 8 mandates H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A production of certificate of insurance by every registered owner
or person having possession or control of a motor vehicle. Section
9 fastens liability to pay vehicle tax by person succeeding to the
ownership, possession or control of motor vehicles. Sections 10
and 11 are of some relevance. Concededly, the validity of these
two provisions have not been assailed by the writ petitioners
B
and, failure to do so, may have some bearing on the view that we
propose to take. From the scheme of the 1976 Act, it is amply
clear that it is specific to levy of tax on motor vehicle and
passengers and goods carried by such vehicle in the State of
Kerala. It is not a law regulating the issuance of a permit by the
C Authority under the 1988 Act as such. Indisputably, the permit
issued by the Authority is hedged with conditions including the
condition of regular payment of vehicle tax. Section 15 provides
for the consequences for nonpayment of tax consistent with
Sections 10 and 11 of the 1976 Act. Thus understood, there is no
occasion for conflict between the two provisions much less
D
repugnancy. [Paras 35, 36][1005-B-F; 1006-A-G, 1007-C]
1.3 As regards the argument regarding bootstrapping of
liabilities of permit-holder under two different State legislations,
it is to say the least tenuous. It is open to the Legislature to
combine levies for other purposes, such as education cess, etc.,
E for collection of tax due and payable by the same tax-payer. It is
one thing to say that the person is being compelled to discharge
liability under two different State enactments, although he is not
liable under one of the two. That is not the argument of these
writ petitioners. The petitioners are not disputing their liability
F under both the State Enactments. The argument, however, is that
the writ petitioners may intend to invoke remedy of appeal and
revision in respect of liability fastened under the 1985 Act. This
argument has been rightly negatived by the High Court in
paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment by observing that
sufficient safeguard has been provided under the relevant
G enactment to file appeal/revision by remitting 50 per cent of the
amount demanded. The High Court issued directions in that
regard in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment. A circular has
been issued on 16.6.2007, clarifying that the aggrieved person,
who prefers appeal on payment of 50 per cent of the contribution
H
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 975
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA

under the Welfare Fund Act, is entitled to get a certificate to that A
effect and on production of that certificate before the Taxing
Authorities, the vehicle tax could be received by the Authority
without payment of the entire Welfare Fund of contributions. The
High Court has already issued directions to extend similar benefit
even in cases where review petition is filed within the prescribed
B
time. The fact remains that no prejudice whatsoever is caused to
the permit-holder who intends to pursue remedy under the 1985
Act against the demand received by him relating to the
contribution of the Welfare Fund. [Paras 37][1007-D-H; 1008-A]
1.4 Reverting to the 1985 Act enacted by the State
Legislature, indisputably, it is a welfare legislation constituting a C
fund to promote the welfare of motor transport workers in the
State of Kerala. This Act is ascribable to Entries 23 and 24 of
List III – Concurrent List. Entry 23 deals with social security
and social insurance; employment and unemployment and Entry
24 deals with welfare of labour including conditions of work, D
provident funds, employers’ liability, workmen’s compensation,
invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits. Ostensibly,
it may appear that the liability arising from the obligations under
the 1985 Act have nothing to do with the subject of vehicle tax.
However, the 1985 Act has been enacted with the objects and
reasons noted. As a vast number of employees were being E
engaged in Motor Transport Industry in the State in the private
sector, the Government thought it necessary to provide for the
constitution of a Fund to promote the welfare of such of the motor
transport workers in the private sector who are not covered by
the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions F
Act, 1952 and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In other words,
this Act came into being to ameliorate the difficulties encountered
by the motor transport workers in the State of Kerala. In due
course, it came to the notice of the Government that the system
of determination and assessment of contribution from employers
and adjudication of disputes, etc., as provided for in the 1985 Act G
had certain loopholes resulting in loss of welfare fund contribution.
In that, the bus operators set forth a defence by creating bogus
partnerships and showing relatives as employees to evade
payment of contribution. Another device was to keep on changing
H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A the employees frequently. Thus, to check this mischief, an
amendment was effected to the 1985 Act vide Act 23 of 2005
including to reduce the arbitrariness in fixing the contribution.
The activities of motor transport workers are directly linked to
the use and operation of the motor transport vehicles having
permit issued under the 1988 Act in that regard. Under the said
B
Act, the permitholder is obliged to ensure that the vehicle tax is
paid regularly. The law clearly provides for action to be taken
against the motor transport vehicle for failure to pay vehicle tax
including to reject renewal of the permit. The stipulation in the
1985 Act is in the nature of ensuring that the vehicle owner/permit-
C holder discharges both the liabilities and does not commit default
in contributing to the welfare fund as also pay vehicle tax on time.
Non-payment of vehicle tax may entail in stopping of motor
vehicle by the Officers of Police or Motor Vehicles Department
in exercise of power under Section 10 of the 1976 Act including
to seize and detain the same pending production of proof
D
remittance of tax as predicated in Section 11 of the Act.
Additionally, the vehicle owner may have to suffer penalty under
Section 16 and face prosecution under Section 17, besides the
permit being rendered ineffective if tax is not paid by virtue of
Section 15. [Para 38][1008-B-H; 1009-A-B]
E 1.5 Considering the scheme of the State legislations, it is
incomprehensible to countenance the argument that the two
provisions (of 1988 Act on the one hand and of 1976 Act and
1985 Act on the other) are inconsistent in any manner whatsoever.
Whereas, the State enactments are complementary and can be
F given effect to without any disobedience to the Central
legislations. As aforementioned, the 1988 Act does not cover
the field of the manner of levy of vehicle tax and collection thereof.
The same is covered by the State legislations. Concededly, the
appellants have not disputed their liability to pay the vehicle tax
levied under the 1976 Act as well as to pay contribution towards
G the workers’ welfare fund under the 1985 Act. So understood,
the real grievance in these appeals by the motor transport vehicle
owners/permit-holders is about compelling them to pay the
welfare contribution dues as a precondition for collection of vehicle
tax. We have no hesitation in taking the view that such
H
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 977
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA

dispensation cannot be construed as unconstitutional. Further, A
such a plea cannot be countenanced at the instance of someone
who otherwise concedes liability to pay both the dues towards
welfare fund contribution and vehicle tax. It is beyond
comprehension that the vehicle owner/permit-holder can be heard
to argue that he would not pay the dues under the 1985 Act and,
B
yet, would continue with the business of motor transport as usual
in the State of Kerala by exploiting the workers on the specious
plea that the validity of the permit to operate transport vehicle
cannot be interdicted under a State legislation. The provision in
the form of Section 15 of the 1976 Act is in the nature of restating
the consequences flowing from Sections 10 and 11 of the same C
Act to stop motor vehicle and to seize and detain the same if
being used or operated without payment of vehicle tax. When
action is taken by the competent authority under Sections 10 and
11 of the Act, inevitably, the transport vehicle in question for
which permit has been taken is rendered unusable due to non-
D
payment of vehicle tax. The liability of the vehicle owner/permit-
holder to pay welfare fund contribution as well as to pay vehicle
tax arises under the legislation enacted by the State Legislature.
As such, there is nothing wrong in State Legislature making it
compulsory to pay outstanding welfare fund contribution first
before accepting the vehicle tax which had become due and E
payable. In this view of the matter, it would be unnecessary to
dilate on the argument regarding validity of Section 15 of the
1976 Act because of lack of Presidential assent after coming into
effect of the 1988 Act. [Paras 39, 40][1009-C; 1010-A-G]
1.6 This Court cannot be oblivious about the legislative F
intent for enacting the 1985 Act and the amendment effected
thereto in 2005. The same is a beneficial legislation with avowed
objective to ensure strict compliance of payment of welfare fund
contribution to protect the workers of the commercial operations
undertaken by the vehicle owners/permit-holders pursuant to a
permit issued under the 1988 Act, and is to reach out to such G
workers who are typically unorganised and a part of informal
workforce. Neither the provisions of the 1985 Act or the 1976
Act have the effect of interdicting the permit issued under the
1988 Act. The real intent and purpose behind these provisions is
H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A to restate the mandate stated in the 1988 Act that the vehicle
cannot be used on road without a valid permit and payment of
vehicle tax up to date. A priori, we have no hesitation in concluding
that the provisions of the 1976 Act and the 1985 Act, enacted by
the State Legislature, are only intended to ensure that the vehicle
owner/permit-holder does not remain in arrears of either the
B
welfare fund contribution or the vehicle tax both payable under
the State enactments. These provisions are in no way in conflict
with the law made by the Parliament (1988 Act). The State
enactments do not create any new liability or obligation in relation
to the permit issued under the 1988 Act (Central legislation),
C but it provides for dispensation to ensure timely collection of the
welfare fund contribution as well as vehicle tax payable by the
same vehicle owner/permit-holder. the writ petitioners through
their counsel had fairly accepted during oral argument that after
the 2005 amendment, for all these years they have been following
the dispensation provided under the State legislations without
D
exception. In that sense, the challenge has become academic.
Be that as it may, we have negatived the stand taken by the writ
petitioners regarding the validity of the amended provisions being
repugnant to the law made by the Parliament. [Paras 41, 42][1010-
H; 1011-A-D]
E Deep Chand vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
[1959] Suppl. 2 SCR 8 – followed.
The State of Bombay & Anr. vs. F.N. Balsara AIR 1951
SC 318 : [1951] SCR 682, M. Karunanidhi vs. Union
of India AIR 1979 SC 898 : [1979] 3 SCR 254, Hardev
F Motor Transport vs. State of M.P. & Ors (2006) 8 SCC
613 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 766, Zaverbhai Amaidas
vs. The State of Bombay [1995] 1 SCR 799, Ch. Tika
Ramji & Ors., etc. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. [1956] SCR 393, Thirumuruga Kirupananda
G Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical
Educational & Charitable Trust vs. State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 15 : [1996] 2 SCR 422, Kulwant
Kaur & Ors. vs. Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) by LRs. &
Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 262 : [2001] 2 SCR 525, Kaiser-I-
Hind Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. National Textile Corpn.
H (Maharashtra North) Ltd. & Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 182:
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 979
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA

[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 555, Hoechst Pharmaceuticals A
Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 45
: [1983] 3 SCR 130, State of Kerala & Ors. vs. Mar
Appraem Kuri Company Limited & Anr. (2012) 7 SCC
106 : [2012] 4 SCR 448, Union of India & Ors. vs.
Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 628:
B
[2004] 2 SCR 468, Director of Elementary Education,
Odisha & Ors. vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo (2019) 10 SCC
674, Association of Natural Gas & Ors. vs. Union of
India & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 489 : [2004] 3 SCR 534,
Dharappa vs. Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers Societies
Union Ltd. (2007) 9 SCC 109 : [2007] 5 SCR 729, C
Ashok Kumar alias Golu vs. Union of India & Ors.
(1991) 3 SCC 498 : [1991] 2 SCR 858, State of Tamil
Nadu & Ors. vs. K. Shyam Sunder & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC
737 : [2011] 11 SCR 1094, Ajay Hasia & Ors. vs. Khalid
Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 722 : [1981] 2
D
SCR 79, The Collector of Customs, Madras vs. Nathella
Sampathu Chetty & Anr. AIR 1962 SC 316 : [1962]
SCR 786, New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant
Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad & Ors. (1970)
2 SCC 820 : [1971] 2 SCR 92 – referred to.
A.L.S.P.P.L. Subrahmanyan Chettiar vs. Muttuswami E
Goundan AIR 1941 FC 47, Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee
& Ors. vs. Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna AIR (34)
1947 PC 60 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
F
[1951] SCR 682 referred to Para 9
[1979] 3 SCR 254 referred to Para 9
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 766 referred to Para 11
[1959] Suppl. 2 SCR 8 followed Para 32
G
[1995] 1 SCR 799 referred to Para 12
[1956] SCR 393 referred to Para 12
[1996] 2 SCR 422 referred to Para 33
[2001] 2 SCR 525 referred to Para 12 H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 555 referred to Para 13
[1983] 3 SCR 130 referred to Para 13
[2012] 4 SCR 448 referred to Para 13
[2004] 2 SCR 468 referred to Para 14
B [2004] 3 SCR 534 referred to Para 17
[2007] 5 SCR 729 referred to Para 17
[1991] 2 SCR 858 referred to Para 18
[2011] 11 SCR 1094 referred to Para 18
[1981] 2 SCR 79 referred to Para 19
C
[1962] SCR 786 referred to Para 27
[1971] 2 SCR 92 referred to Para 27
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4502
of 2009.
D From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2007 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP (C) No.9971 of 2006.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.878 And 879 of 2010.
E K. Radhakrishnan, P.N. Ravindran, Sr. Advs., Abhisth Kumar, K.
Parameshwar, Alex Joseph, Linto K. B., Sonali S.S., Prasad Hegde, S.
Begurupriya, S. K. Bose, Ranjith K. C., Bikas Kar Gupta, Avijit
Bhattacharjee, Mrs. Debarati Sadhu, Abraham Mathews, Nishe Rajen
Shonker, Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar, P.S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari,
Ms. Anne Mathew, Ms. Shruti Jose, Advs. for the appearing parties.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. These appeals involve challenge to the constitutional validity of
sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 [introduced by way of the Kerala
G Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 20051 in the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 19762], Section 15 of the 1976 Act and Section
8A of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Act, 19853
inserted by Act 23 of 2005.
1
for short, “the Amendment Act”
2
for short, “the 1976 Act”
H 3
for short, “the 1985 Act”
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 981
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

2. The thrust of the challenge is on the ground that the State A
Legislature by way of stated amendments to the welfare legislation has
effectively bootstrapped the obligation to make contribution to the
workers’ welfare fund with the obligation to pay tax for operating motor
vehicles. In other words, the welfare legislation is intertwined with the
compensatory legislation by the impugned Amendment Act of 2005 and
B
together they substantially encroach and override the relevant provisions
of the Central legislation i.e., the Motor Vehicles Act, 19884 to paralyse
the Stage and Goods Carriage Operation or to undermine the effectiveness
of the transport permit provided under the 1988 Act.
3. The 1976 Act was enacted by the State Legislature when the
erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act, 19395 was in force. It was so enacted C
under Entry 56 (Taxes on goods and passengers carried by road or on
inland waterways) and Entry 57 (Taxes on vehicles, whether
mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads, including
tramcars subject to the provisions of entry 35 of List III) of List II of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Section 15 of the 1976 Act D
postulates that non-payment of tax due in respect of a transport vehicle
within the prescribed period would render the transport permit for such
vehicle ineffective from the date of expiry of the said period until such
time as the tax is actually paid. The State of Kerala had sought Presidential
assent for the 1976 Act and the same was granted on 25.3.1976.
However, in due course, the 1939 Act was repealed by the Parliament E
and it was replaced by the 1988 Act, introducing a new regime to
consolidate and amend the law related to motor vehicles. This Act (the
1988 Act) was enacted by the Parliament under Entry 35 of List III
(Mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes
on such vehicles are to be levied). Chapter V of the 1988 Act deals with F
control of transport vehicles, including the procedure of Regional
Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit
and the duration and renewal of permits. According to the appellants,
the 1988 Act exhaustively covered all aspects of grant, control and validity
of transport permits. Further, the State of Kerala did not seek Presidential
assent in respect of the State Act i.e., 1976 Act, after coming into force G
of the Central Act, despite the repugnancy between the existing State
Act and the newly introduced the 1988 Act.
4
for short, “the 1988 Act” or “the Central Act”, as the case may be
5
for short, “the 1939 Act”
H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A 4. Furthermore, in the year 2005, the State of Kerala amended
the 1976 Act and the 1985 Act thereby introducing sub-sections (7) and
(8) of Section 46 in the 1976 Act and Section 8A7 in the 1985 Act. The
effect of these amendments is to mandate production of receipt of
6
4. Payment of tax and issue of license.-
(1) The Tax levied under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 shall be paid in advance
B with such period and in such manner as may be prescribed, by the registered owner or
person having possession or control of the Motor Vehicle, for a quarter or year, at his
choice, upon a quarterly or annual licence to be taken out by him.
Provided that, in the case of fleet owner, the Government may direct that the
tax shall be paid in monthly instalments before such date, in such manner and subject to
such conditions, as may be specified in the direction:
Provided further that where the tax payable in respect of a motor vehicle other
C than a motorcycle (including a motor scooter and cycle with attachment for propelling
the same by mechanical power) or a three wheeler as specified in items 1 and 2 of the
schedule or a motor car as specified in item 11 of the Schedule, for a year does not
exceed Rupees one thousand five hundred, the tax shall be paid yearly upon an annual
licence:
Provided also that the registered owner, or person having possession or control
of the motor vehicle may, at his /her choice, pay the yearly tax payable under the
D second proviso in advance for any period upto 5 years, upon a licence for such period:
Provided also that the registered owner, or a person having possession or
control of a motor cycle (including motor scooters and cycles, with attachment for
propelling the same by mechanical power) specified in item 1 of the Schedule or three
wheelers (including tricycles and cycle rickshaws with attachment for propelling the
same by mechanical power) not used for transport of goods or passengers specified in
item 2 of the Schedule or a motor car specified in item 11 of the said Schedule shall pay
E
tax in respect of those vehicles in advance for a period of two years in lumpsum upon
a licence for such period.
Provided also that a registered owner or person liable to pay tax for a period of
two years in respect of motor vehicles specified in serial numbers 1 and 2 of the
schedule may at his choice pay tax in advance for any period exceeding two years at the
rates specified in the Schedule:
F Provided also that the owner or a person liable to pay tax in respect of vehicles
specified in items 1,2,11 and 12 of the Schedule shall not be liable to pay any periodical
increase in tax for which he has paid tax for such vehicles.
Provided also that a registered owner or a person liable to pay tax for a period
of two years under the preceding proviso may, at his choice, pay tax in advance for a
period of five years or ten years or fifteen years in lumpsum upon a licence for such
period.
G Explanation:- (1) The tax for an annual licence shall not exceed four times tax
for two years licence shall not exceed eight times, tax for 5 years’ licence shall not
exceed twenty times, tax for 10 years’ licence shall not exceed forty times and tax for 15
years’ licence shall not exceed sixty times, the tax for a quarterly licence.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act,
‘year’ in relation to a motor vehicle in respect of which tax has to be paid yearly upon
an annual licence in pursuance of the second proviso to sub section (1), shall mean a
H period of twelve months commencing on the first day of the quarter in which the
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 983
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

remittance of welfare fund contribution at the time of making payment A
of vehicle tax before the Taxation Officer. In this context, it is urged that
vehicle has been or is, first registered in the State and annual tax licence in respect of
such a vehicle shall be taken accordingly:
Provided that if the tax in respect of a motor vehicle for any portion of the year
so reckoned has already been paid, the tax payable for the remaining period of that year
shall be calculated at the rate of one-twelth of the annual tax for each calendar month or B
part thereof.
Provided further that in the case of a motor vehicle in respect of which tax has
to be paid yearly upon an annual licence in pursuance of the second proviso to sub-
section (1), the tax for the period from the 1st day of April 1985, to the commencement
of the year in relation to such a vehicle shall be paid as if the Kerala Motor Vehicles
Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1986 had not been enacted.
(2) In the case of licence for a year or more, such rebate in respect of the tax, as C
may be prescribed, shall be granted.
(3) When any person pays the amount of tax in respect of a motor vehicle used
or kept for use in the State of the vehicle by the Regional Transport Officer concerned
that no tax is payable in respect of such vehicle, the Taxation Officer shall-
(a) grant to such person a licence in the prescribed form: and
(b) record that the tax has been paid for the specified period, or that no tax is
payable in respect of that vehicle, as the case may be. D
Provided that no licence shall be granted in respect of a motor vehicle, which is
exempt from payment of tax under sub-section (1) of Section 5.
(4) No motor vehicle liable to tax under Section 3 shall be kept for use in the
State unless the registered owner or the person having possession or control of such
vehicle has obtained a tax licence under sub-section (3) in respect of that vehicle.
(5) No motor vehicle liable to tax under Section 3 shall be used in the State
unless a valid tax licence obtained under sub section (3) is displayed on the vehicle in E
the prescribed manner.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no person shall be
liable to tax during any period on account of any taxable motor vehicle, the tax due in
respect of which for the same period has already been paid by some other person.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act,
every registered owner or person having possession or control of a motor vehicle in
respect of a motor transport undertaking liable to pay contribution under the Kerala F
Motor Transport Worker’s Welfare Fund Act, 1985 (21 of 1985) shall, before effecting
payment of tax produce before the Taxation Officer the receipt of remittance of the
contribution towards welfare fund due upto the preceding month.
(8.) No tax under this Act shall be collected unless the receipt of remittance of
contribution towards welfare fund mentioned in sub-section (7) is produced.
7
8A. Production of receipt of remittance of welfare fund contribution.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force every G
registered owner or person having possession or control of a motor vehicle in respect of
a motor transport undertaking liable to pay contribution (other than autorickshaws
covered under the provisions the Kerala Autorickshaw Workers’ Welfare Fund Scheme,
1991) shall, at the time of making payment of the tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1976 (19 of 1976) produce before the Taxation Officer the receipt of
remittance of the contribution to the fund upto the preceding month.
H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A the amendment of 2005 effected by the State legislation has effectively
bootstrapped the obligation to make contribution to the workers’ welfare
fund with the obligation to pay tax for operating motor vehicles, which
are otherwise governed by the permit issued under the 1988 Act. In the
process, it undermined the effectiveness of the permit so issued by the
competent authority.
B
5. It is urged that the amendments to the 1976 Act as also to the
1985 Act, including Section 15 of the 1976 Act, are unconstitutional as
the entire field is already occupied by the Central Act of 1988, with
respect to permits to be issued for operating transport vehicles. Thus,
the provisions of the State Act(s) referred to above are repugnant to the
C Central Act and that no Presidential assent had been obtained by the
State of Kerala despite the repugnancy with the Central Act. Further,
even if there is no direct conflict, the impugned provisions in the State
Act(s) are ultra vires for want of legislative competence.
6. Notably, in the writ petitions filed before the High Court of
D Kerala, challenging the stated provisions in the State enactments, no
relief or declaration was sought in respect of Section 8A of the 1985
Act. Moreover, the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned
judgment noted that the counsel for the petitioner(s) had given up the
challenge to the validity of Section 15 of the 1976 Act. Being conscious
E of this indisputable position, it is urged that there can be no estoppel on
legal questions or the concessions made by the counsel on the question
of law before the High Court. That cannot come in the way of the
appellants to pursue the challenge to the impugned provisions before this
Court.

F 7. Be that as it may, the Division Bench of the High Court
exhaustively considered the arguments canvassed on behalf of the parties
and on thorough scrutiny thereof, it negatived the challenge vide impugned
judgment dated 30.7.2007. The High Court opined that the combined
effect of sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 and Section 15 of the
1976 Act, is that if a clearance certificate is not obtained from the
G Assessing Officer under the 1985 Act, the motor vehicle tax would not
be received by the Taxation Officer in connection with the permit. As a
consequence of which, the permit would be rendered ineffective,
disentitling the owner of a stage carriage from operating his vehicle
under such permit for the relevant period.
H
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 985
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

8. The High Court further noted that the 1988 Act had been enacted A
by the Parliament on subjects falling under Entry 35 of List III which,
however, did not cover the field concerningimposition and the manner of
recovery of vehicle tax. Section 81(1)8 of the 1988 Act envisages that a
permit other than a temporary permit issued under Section 879 or a special
permit issued under sub-section (8)10 of Section 88 shall be effective
B
from the date of issuance or renewal thereof for a period of five years.
8
81. Duration and renewal of permits.—(1) A permit other than a temporary permit
issued under section 87 or a special permit issued under sub-section (8) of section 88
shall be effective from the date of issuance or renewal thereof for a period of five years:
Provided that where the permit is countersigned under sub-section (1) of section
88, such counter-signature shall remain effective without renewal for such period so as
to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit.
C
…..
9
87. Temporary permits.—(1) A Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport
Authority may without following the procedure laid down in section 80, grant permits
to be effective for a limited period which shall, not in any case exceed four months, to
authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily—
(a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from D
fairs and religious gatherings, or
(b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or
(c) to meet a particular temporary need, or
(d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit,
and may attach to any such permit such condition as it may think fit:
Provided that a Regional Transport Authority or, as the case may be, State
Transport Authority may, in the case of goods carriages, under the circumstances of an E
exceptional nature, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant a permit for a period
exceeding four months, but not exceeding one year.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a temporary permit may be
granted thereunder in respect of any route or area where—
(i) no permit could be issued under section 72 or section 74 or section 76 or section 79
in respect of that route or area by reason of an order of a Court or other competent
authority restraining the issue of the same, for a period not exceeding the period for F
which the issue of the permit has been so restrained; or
(ii) as a result of the suspension by a Court or other competent authority of the permit
of any vehicle in respect of that route or area, there is no transport vehicle of the same
class with a valid permit in respect of that route or area, or there is no adequate number
of such vehicles in respect of that route or area, for a period not exceeding the period of
such suspension:
G
Provided that the number of transport vehicles in respect of which temporary
permits are so granted shall not exceed the number of vehicles in respect of which the
issue of the permits have been restrained or, as the case may be, the permit has been
suspended.
10
88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted.—
…..
H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A Whereas, the State Act i.e., the 1976 Act, came to be enacted under
Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which is
solely concerned with tax on vehicles whether mechanically propelled
or not. Whilst, the 1985 Act is also a State legislation covered under
Entries 23 and 24 of List III for promoting the welfare of motor transport
workers.
B
9. Dealing with the challenge to the validity of the stated provisions
in the State enactments, the Division Bench of the High Court plainly
opined that there was no lack of legislative competence in the State
Legislature and that the 1976 Act as well as the 1985 Act, fall substantially
within the powers expressly conferred upon the State Legislature which
C had enacted both the legislations, including the Amendment Act of 2005.
It further held that merely because the 1976 Act had also dealt with a
subject which falls under Entries 23 and 24 of List III of the Concurrent
List, it cannot be held that the provisions of the 1976 Act are bad in law.
To buttress the view taken by it, the High Court relied upon the exposition
D in A.L.S.P.P.L. Subrahmanyan Chettiar vs. Muttuswami Goundan11;
Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee & Ors. vs. Bank of Commerce Ltd.,
Khulna12; TheState of Bombay & Anr. vs. F.N. Balsara13; and M.
Karunanidhi vs. Union of India14. The High Court opined that the
State enactments and the impugned amendments substantially fall within
the powers expressly conferred upon the State Legislature and cannot
E be held to be invalid solely because it incidentally touches upon another
(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but subject to any rules
that may be made under this Act by the Central Government, the Regional Transport
Authority of any one region or, as the case may be, the State Transport Authority, may,
for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit to any public service vehicle
including any vehicle covered by a permit issued under section 72 (including a reserve
F stage carriage) or under section 74 or under sub-section (9) of this section for carrying
a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for
the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line
of route passengers not included in the contract, and in every case where such special
permit is granted, the Regional Transport Authority shall assign to the vehicle, for
display thereon, a special distinguishing mark in the form and manner specified by the
Central Government and such special permit shall be valid in any other region or State
G without the countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region
or of the State Transport Authority of the other State, as the case may be.
…..
11
AIR 1941 FC 47
12
AIR (34) 1947 PC 60
13
AIR 1951 SC 318
14
H AIR 1979 SC 898
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 987
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

legislation. The doctrine of pith and substance would clearly get attracted A
in the fact situation of the present case. Whilst dealing with the argument
of the appellants that the right of appeal and review available to the
appellants under the 1985 Act would be curtailed, the High Court in
paragraphs 18 and 19 noted thus:
“18. Petitioners, as we have already indicated, have raised a B
contention that because of the introduction of sub-sections (7)
and (8) to Section 4 of the Taxation Act, remedy of filing a review
as well as appeal under Section 8 of the Welfare Fund Act has
been effectively curtailed. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 enables a
person to file a review petition before the authority who had
determined the arrears showing the detailed facts and reasons C
for reviewing the original determination. Right is also conferred
on the aggrieved party if he is dissatisfied with the order passed
by the authority on the review petition to file appeal before the
District Labour Officer of the concerned district. To maintain an
appeal he need remit only 50% of the amount demanded. The D
above right to file review or appeal has been effectively taken
away by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 that is, only on
production of certificate of payment of contribution the officer
will accept tax. We have already indicated that a Circular dated
16.06.2007 has been issued receipt of 50% of the contribution
due under the Welfare Fund Act enabling the aggrieved person to E
pay tax. Therefore an aggrieved party who files an appeal on
payment of 50% of the contribution under the Welfare Fund Act
is entitled to get a certificate to that effect and on production of
that certificate before the taxing authorities he would receive tax.
Circular of course does not deal with review petition. We therefore F
order that if a properly constituted review petition is filed within
the prescribed time, and the same is pending the Chief Executive
Officer or any other officer appointed under section 8 of the
Welfare Fund Act that officer has to issue a certificate to that
effect and on production of that certificate the taxing authority
should receive tax under the Taxation Act. The right to file a G
review petition as well as an appeal is therefore effectively
protected.
19. We therefore hold that sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4
of Act 24 of 2005 is constitutionally valid; so also Section 8A
introduced under the Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act. However, H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A we hold if a review petition filed under sub-section (2) of Section
8 as well as appeal under Section 4 read with Section 7 is pending
consideration before the authorities concerned, they are obliged
to issue a certificate during the pendency of the review petition
and if an appeal is pending and pre condition for filing appeal has
been satisfied, certificate has to be issued by the appellate authority
B
and if those certificates are produced before the taxing authority
they would receive tax under the Taxation Act. The writ appeal
and the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.”
10. In substance, the High Court has noted that the permit holders
were neither disputing their obligation to pay vehicle tax under the 1976
C Act nor are they denying the obligation to pay contribution towards the
welfare fund under the 1985 Act. The purport of the impugned
amendments, including Section 15, was merely to ensure that both these
obligations are duly discharged so as to permit the transport operators to
continue with their business uninterrupted. It is neither a case of levy of
D tax not permitted under the 1988 Act nor deviating from the spirit of the
said Act, which clearly predicates that for grant of stage carriage permit,
the Regional Transport Authority is obliged to consider the satisfactory
performance of the applicant as a stage carriage operator, including
payment of tax by the applicant. The provision(s) in the State Legislation
is not to suspend the permit issued under the 1988 Act, but the expression
E “ineffective” ought to be construed as enabling the permit holder to avail
of the permit only upon payment of vehicle tax under the 1976 Act, as
amended from time to time. On this analysis, the High Court rejected
the challenge and dismissed the writ petitions and writ appeals vide
impugned judgment.
F 11. The appellants have assailed the view taken by the High Court.
It is urged by Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that the Central legislation i.e., the 1988 Act, occupies the
entire field of permits and the said legislation is a self-contained code as
expounded by this Court in Hardev Motor Transport vs. State of M.P.
G & Ors.15. He would submit that Chapter V of the 1988 Act deals with
all aspects of permits, including their issuance, effectiveness, duration of
validity, renewal, transfer and penal consequences for any breach of
conditions. Section 81(1) of the 1988 Act envisages that the permit issued
by the competent authority shall be effective from the date of issuance
15
H (2006) 8 SCC 613 (paras 4, 11 and 12)
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 989
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

or renewal thereof for a period of five years. Once such permit is issued, A
the same cannot be interdicted by a State legislation during its validity
period. Section 8216 of the 1988 Act also allows transfer of permit from
one person to another and Section 8317 allows the permit holder to replace
the vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same
nature. Moreover, Section 192A18 of the 1988 Act specifically imposes
B
punishment of imprisonment for a term specified therein for using a
16
82. Transfer of permit.—(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), a permit shall not
be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport
authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to
confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right
to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit.
(2) Where the holder of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the
C
vehicle covered by the permit may, for a period of three months, use the permit as if it
had been granted to himself:
Provided that such person has, within thirty days of the death of the holder,
informed the transport authority which granted the permit of the death of the holder
and of his own intention to use the permit:
Provided further that no permit shall be so used after the date on which it D
would have ceased to be effective without renewal in the hands of the deceased holder.
(3) The transport authority may, on application made to it within three months
of the death of the holder of a permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding to
the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit:
Provided that the transport authority may entertain an application made after
the expiry of the said period of three months if it is satisfied that the applicant was
prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time E
specified.
17
83. Replacement of vehicles.—The holder of a permit may, with the permission of
the authority by which the permit was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the
permit by any other vehicle of the same nature.
18
192A. Using vehicle without permit.—(1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or
causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of sub-
section (1) of section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the F
route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used,
shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months and a fine of ten thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence
with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than six months
or with fine of ten thousand rupees or with both:
Provided that the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser
G
punishment.
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the use of a motor vehicle in an
emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injury or for the
transport of materials for repair or for the transport of food or materials to relieve
distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose:
Provided that the person using the vehicle reports about the same to the Regional
Transport Authority within seven days from the date of such use. H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A vehicle without a permit and Section 17719 of the 1988 Act is a general
provision for punishment owing to contravention of the provisions of the
Act or of any rule, regulation, or notification made thereunder. Section
20720 of the 1988 Act also provides for seizure and detention of any
vehicle that is plying without a permit. In other words, there is an inbuilt
mechanism in the 1988 Act for situations to deal with violation of conditions
B
of permit or using the vehicle without a valid permit. This being a complete
code, it would not be open to the State Legislature to impinge upon the
occupied field. Hence, Section 15 of the 1976 Act is in direct conflict
with the legislative scheme under the Central legislation, dealing with
permit of transport vehicles. The State legislation would only be limited
C to tax on vehicles and cannot transcend on matters relating to permits or
its effectiveness during the term of five years provided for under Section
8121of the 1988 Act. Whereas, Section 15 of the 1976 renders the transport
(3) The court to which an appeal lies from any conviction in respect of an
offence of the nature specified in sub-section (1), may set aside or vary any order made
by the court below, notwithstanding that no appeal lies against the conviction in
D connection with which such order was made.
19
177. General provision for punishment of offences.—Whoever contravenes any
provision of this Act or of any rule, regulation or notification made thereunder shall, if
no penalty is provided for the offence be punishable for the first offence with fine
which may extend to five hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence
with fine which may extend to one thousand and five hundred rupees.
20
207. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration permit,
E etc.—(1) Any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State
Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being
used in contravention of the provisions of section 3 or section 4 or section 39 or
without the permit required by sub-section (1) of section 66 or in contravention of any
condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the
purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle, in the prescribed
F manner and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider
proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle:
Provided that where any such officer or person has reason to believe that a
motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of section 3 or section 4 or
without the permit required by sub-section (1) of section 66 he may, instead of seizing
the vehicle, seize the certificate of registration of the vehicle and shall issue an
acknowledgment in respect thereof.
G (2) Where a motor vehicle has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the
owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle may apply to the transport authority or
any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government together with the relevant
documents for the release of the vehicle and such authority or officer may, after
verification of such documents, by order release the vehicle subject to such conditions
as the authority or officer may deem fit to impose.
21
81. Duration and renewal of permits.—(1) A permit other than a temporary
H permit issued under section 87 or a special permit issued under sub-section (8) of
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 991
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

permit ineffective. Thus, it exposes the permit holder to multiple A
punishment under the 1988 Act as well as the 1976 Act.
12. He further submits that repugnancy can arise even in the
absence of direct or irreconcilable conflict, if it touches upon the field
occupied by the Central legislation. Reliance is placed on Deep Chand
vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.22 which had followed the B
section 88 shall be effective from the date of issuance or renewal thereof for a period of
five years:
Provided that where the permit is countersigned under sub-section (1) of section
88, such counter-signature shall remain effective without renewal for such period so as
to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit.
(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made not less than fifteen days before C
the date of its expiry.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Regional Transport
Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, entertain an application
for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is
satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an
application within the time specified.
(4) The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case D
may be, may reject an application for the renewal of a permit on one or more of the
following grounds, namely:—
(a) the financial condition of the applicant as evidenced by insolvency, or
decrees for payment of debts remaining unsatisfied for a period of thirty days,
prior to the date of consideration of the application;
(b) the applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following
offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of E
consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a
stage carriage service by the applicant, namely:—
(i) plying any vehicle—
(1) without payment of tax due on such vehicle;
(2) without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for payment
of such tax and then stop the plying of such vehicle; F
(3) on any unauthorised route;
(ii) making unauthorised trips:
Provided that in computing the number of punishments for the purpose of
clause (b), any punishment stayed by the order of an appellate authority shall not be
taken into account:
Provided further that no application under this sub-section shall be rejected
unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant. G
(5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period
thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of
whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and
where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary
permit shall be refunded.
22
(1959) Supp. 2 SCR 8 (para 28)
H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A decisions in Zaverbhai Amaidas vs. The State of Bombay23 and Ch.
Tika Ramji & Ors., etc. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.24.
Reliance is also placed on Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar
Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Educational & Charitable
Trust vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.25; and Kulwant Kaur & Ors.
vs. Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.26.
B
13. It is urged that as there is repugnancy, the State of Kerala
ought to have obtained Presidential assent in respect of the 1976 Act
after coming into force of the 1988 Act as was obtained under the proviso
to Article 304(b) of the Constitution on 25.3.1976 in reference to the
provisions of the 1939 Act. In absence of such Presidential assent, Section
C 15 of the 1976 Act is rendered ultra vires, being repugnant with Section
81 of the 1988 Act. Reliance is placed on Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr. vs. National Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra North) Ltd. & Ors.27.
For the same reason, the State of Kerala ought to have obtained
Presidential assent under Article 304(b) of the Constitution in respect of
D amended provisions vide the Amendment Act of 2005. Reliance is also
placed on Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Bihar &
Ors.28 to contend that the question of repugnancy under Article 254(1)
between a law made by the Parliament and a law made by the State
Legislature arises only in case both the legislations occupy the same
field with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent
E List, and there is direct conflict between the two laws. But, Article 254(1)
has no application to cases of repugnancy due to overlapping found
between List II on the one hand, and Lists I and III on the other. If such
overlapping exists, the State law will be ultra vires because of the non
obstante clause in Article 246(1) read with Article 246(3). The State law
F in that case would eventually fail for lack of legislative competence and
not because of repugnancy. Reliance is also placed on State of Kerala
& Ors. vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Limited & Anr.29 which
had dealt with the efficacy of Article 246(1) of the Constitution.
14. It is also urged that the appellants cannot be non-suited from
arguing the validity of Section 15 of the 1976 Act, being in conflict with
G 23
(1955) 1 SCR 799
24
(1956) SCR 393
25
(1996) 3 SCC 15 (para 26)
26
(2001) 4 SCC 262 (para 14)
2
7 (2002) 8 SCC 182 (paras 72 to 76)
28
(1983) 4 SCC 45 (para 69)
29
H (2012) 7 SCC 106 (para 39)
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 993
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Section 81 of the 1988 Act, merely because of the concession of the A
counsel on the question of law before the High Court. To buttress this
submission, reliance is placed on the dictum in Union of India & Ors.
vs. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi & Ors.30 and Director of Elementary
Education, Odisha & Ors. vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo31.
15. It is, thus, submitted that the appellants are entitled to assail B
the constitutional validity of not only sub-Sections (7) and (8) of Section
4, as inserted by the Amendment Act of 2005 in the 1976 Act, but also
Section 15 of the 1976 Act. In the submission of the appellants, these
provisions are unconstitutional.
16. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for C
the appellants in the connected matters, more or less, pursued the same
line of challenge to the amended provisions and Section 15 of the 1976
Act, but in addition, he also assailed the validity of Section 8A, as inserted
by Act 23 of 2005 in the 1985 Act. According to him, Section 8A of the
1985 Act with its non-obstante clause in effect overrides the Central
legislation i.e., the 1988 Act. He submits that the High Court, in paragraph D
19 of the impugned judgment, has upheld the constitutional validity of
Section 8A of the 1985 Act; and, hence, it is open to the appellants to
challenge the validity of this provision in the present appeals. In his
submission, Entry 57 of List II (State List) is made subject to Entry 35 of
the Concurrent List (List III). Hence, the impugned amendments in E
Section 4 of the 1976 Act cannot encroach and override the Central
legislation i.e., the 1988 Act, much less undermine the Stage and Goods
Carriage Operations as per the permit issued under that Act.
17. It is further urged that Entry 57 of List II (State List) is not
made subject to Entry 24 of the Concurrent List and for which reason, F
the 1976 Act cannot be made subservient to the 1985 Act. The 1985 Act
is a labour welfare legislation, whereas the 1976 Act is a legislation
which is compensatory in nature. In any case, the 1988 Act is a complete
code and a regulatory legislation. In his submission, the welfare legislation
has been intertwined by the State of Kerala with the compensatory
legislation vide impugned amendments/insertions and together these G
provisions substantially encroach and override the dispensations and
provisions predicated in the 1988 Act concerning issuance of permits
and its effectiveness. In his submission, the impugned State enactments
30
(2004) 3 SCC 628 (paras 8 and 9)
31
(2019) 10 SCC 674 (para 11) H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A are repugnant with the Central law and there exist irreconcilable conflict
and direct collision between the State and Central legislations, impinging
upon the mandate of Article 254(1) of the Constitution which declares
that the Central legislations must prevail. He submits that the impugned
State enactments are, therefore, void and unconstitutional. The same do
not have the protection under Article 254(2) of the Constitution and in
B
absence of Presidential assent, it cannot prevail. He has placed reliance
on M. Karunanidhi32; Association of Natural Gas & Ors. vs. Union
of India & Ors.33; and Dharappa vs. Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers
Societies Union Ltd.34.
18. It is his submission the State enactments suffer from the vice
C of the lack of legislative competence and are colourable legislations.
The field of legislation in Entry 57 of the State List and Entry 24 of the
Concurrent List are distinct and different. However, two State legislations
are operating in different fields to achieve different goals. For that reason,
the impugned amendments/insertions in the concerned provisions are
D bordering on transgression of the limits of the powers to achieve indirectly
the collection of welfare fund contribution. The State Legislature is not
competent to frame such law for ensuring collection of welfare fund
dues through the medium of a taxation statute. In the process, the taxation
statute is made to yield to the welfare fund statute. To buttress this
submission, reliance has been placed on the dictum in Ashok Kumar
E alias Golu vs. Union of India & Ors.35 and State of Tamil Nadu &
Ors. vs. K. Shyam Sunder & Ors.36.
19. It is then submitted that the impugned amendments/insertions
are manifestly arbitrary and inevitably impinge upon the fundamental
rights inasmuch as, the substantive unreasonableness is apparent on the
F face of the impugned insertions by way of sub-Section (8) of Section 4
which declares that no tax shall be collected unless the receipt of
remittance of contribution towards welfare fund mentioned in sub-Section
(7) of Section 4 is produced. This is manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable.
In that, the Taxation Officer is duty bound to accept tax when offered
G by the tax payer and he cannot refuse to do so much less to impact the
Stage and Goods Carriage Operations with valid permits issued under
32
Supra at Footnote No.14 (para 8)
33
(2004) 4 SCC 489 (paras 13 and 15)
34
(2007) 9 SCC 109 (para 12)
35
(1991) 3 SCC 498 (para 9)
36
H (2011) 8 SCC 737 (para 36)
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 995
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

the Central legislations i.e., the 1988 Act. The permit so issued cannot A
be rendered ineffective by a State legislation. In that sense, the impugned
amendments/insertions are hit by Article 254(1) and 254(2) of the
Constitution. The presumption of constitutionality cannot come to the
aid of the impugned amendments/insertions which are vitiated by manifest
legislative arbitrariness and have deleterious impact on the permit of
B
Stage and Goods Carriage Operations. The impugned insertions,
therefore, fall foul of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as well. Reliance
is placed on Ajay Hasia & Ors. vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.37
and K. Shyam Sunder38. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeals be
allowed and the impugned provisions in the State enactments be declared
as unconstitutional. C
20. Mr. Abraham Mathews, learned counsel appearing for the
State of Kerala, has adopted the reasons recorded by the Division Bench
of the High Court in the impugned judgment. Additionally, it is submitted
that the appellants conceded their liability to pay the tax levied under the
1976 Act as well as their dues/contribution under the 1985 Act. In that D
sense, the only challenge in these appeals is that the amendment makes
payment of the welfare dues a precondition for the collection of the tax,
thereby dovetailed with a tax, merely for the purpose of compliance.
Such a provision cannot be construed as unconstitutional. It is always
open to the Legislature to combine levies for other purposes such as
education cess, etc. Moreover, in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment, E
the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly provided by directing
the statutory authorities that if a tax payer produces proof of having
preferred an appeal in the prescribed mode in respect of legitimate dispute
over the quantum of levy, that be regarded as sufficient compliance.
This is a safeguard and must be good enough to assuage the apprehension F
of the appellants, who intend to dispute the quantum of levy under the
1985 Act. In other words, if the permit holder has resorted to remedy of
appeal/review in respect of demand under the 1985 Act, that would be
regarded as sufficient compliance so as to accept the vehicle tax by the
Taxation Officer under the 1976 Act. Therefore, no prejudice whatsoever
would be caused to such permit holder. In any case, the permit holder G
cannot be heard to argue that he would not pay the dues under the 1985
Act and yet would want to continue with the business as usual, exploiting
the workers sheerly because of the validity of the permit to operate
37
(1981) 1 SCC 722 (para 16)
38
Supra at Footnote No.36 (paras 50 to 53) H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A transport vehicle used in the same business as usual. As a matter of
fact, the levy under the 1985 Act is covered by Entry 24 of the Concurrent
List. Whereas, the vehicle tax is levied as per Entry 35 thereof. The two
fields are different and there is no encroachment into the legislative
domain of the Parliament.
B 21. It is further urged that even if it is a case of encroachment
into the legislative domain of the Parliament, such encroachment, being
incidental one, is protected by the doctrine of pith and substance as
expounded in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd.39.
22. It is also urged that the levy of contribution to the workers’
C welfare fund is a socially beneficial legislation intended to protect the
workers of the commercial operations undertaken by the appellants and
other similarly placed vehicle operators pursuant to permit issued under
the Central legislation. The workers engaged by them may not be eligible
to avail of the pension and provident fund scheme. In most of the cases,
they are typically unorganised and part of the informal workforce of the
D country and often left to fend for themselves. The 1985 Act is to reach
out to such workers and provide them with support on the basis of the
collection made from the Stage and Goods Carriage Operators. In the
past, there has been any number of instances where the operators had
deliberately avoided to pay and contribute to the workers’ welfare fund
E which was frowned upon even by the High Court warranting
amendments to the State legislations which are impugned in the present
proceedings.
23. It is, thus, urged that the challenge set forth by the appellants
is devoid of merit. In that, the provisions of the State enactments, which
F are impugned in the present proceedings, do not undo the permit issued
under the Central legislation as such, but merely restates the mandate of
the Central legislation itself that the vehicle cannot be used without permit
and payment of vehicle tax. Merely because permit is issued under the
Central legislation which provides for a term of five years from the date
of issuance, it does not follow that the permit holder or the vehicle owner
G can operate the vehicle under such a permit without payment of tax
payable by virtue of the State legislation and more so linked to the
activities relatable to the vehicle. It is open to the State to stop any
vehicle or seize and detain the vehicle despite a valid permit if it is used
or kept for use within the State without payment of tax payable under
39
H Supra at Footnote No.28
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 997
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

the 1976 Act. That is a consequence under the State legislation. In one A
sense, the amended provisions using the expression “ineffective” would
mean that despite a valid permit, action can be taken under the State
legislation concerning the vehicle which is used or kept for use within
the State without payment of tax.
24. It is a different matter that precondition of production of proof B
of payment of dues under the 1985 Act has been provided for before
accepting the vehicle tax by the Taxation Officer. If so understood, Section
15 of the 1976 Act cannot be regarded as in conflict or repugnant with
Section 81 of the 1988 Act. Even under the 1988 Act, the permit holder
is obliged to pay tax regularly, failing which, it can entail cancellation or
rejection of permit/renewal, including penal consequences for violation. C

25. Mr. P.N. Ravindran, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board40, has also
defended the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. He
submits that in the State of Kerala, the levy of tax on motor vehicles is
governed by the 1976 Act, a law enacted by the State Legislature under D
Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. This Act
had received Presidential assent on 15.3.1976. Whereas, the 1985 Act
was enacted by the State Legislature under Entry 24 of List III of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Under Section 341 of this Act, the
State Government has formulated a scheme known as ‘the Kerala Motor E
Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board Scheme, 1985’42. As per Section
943of the 1985 Act and paragraph 29 of the 1985 Scheme, every employer,
40
for short, “the Welfare Fund Board”
41
3.Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund.-
(1) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, frame a scheme to be called
the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Scheme for the establishment of a F
Fund under this Act for employees and there shall be established, as soon as may be
after the framing of the scheme, a Fund in accordance with the provisions of this Act
and the scheme.
(2) The Fund shall vest in, and be administered by, the Board.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the scheme may provide for all or any of the
matters specified in the Schedule.
42
for short, “the 1985 Scheme”
G
43
9. Remittance of monthly contribution.-
(1) Every employer, employer and self-employed person shall, pay the contribution
due from him every month as provided for in the scheme.
(2) The monthly contribution shall become payable on or before the 7th day of the
succeeding month.
H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A employee and self-employed person are obliged to remit the monthly
contribution on or before the 7th day of the succeeding month. Section
844 of the 1985 Act and paragraph 28 of the 1985 Scheme provide for
determination of the amount due under the Act and the Scheme from
the employer, employee and self-employed person. It provides for remedy
of review petition before the authority, who determined the arrears; an
B
appeal before the District Labour Officer; and, in cases where arrears
in dispute exceed Rs.1,00,000/-, a second appeal to the Kerala Motor
Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board. The appeal can be entertained
only if 50% of the amount, as mentioned in the order under challenge, is
paid. It was noticed that mandate of the 1985 Act and the 1985 Scheme
C was not being complied with in most of the cases. This aspect was
taken note of by the High Court in O.P. No.7440 of 2003 filed by the
Kerala Private Bus Operators Federation and pursuant to the directions
44
8 Determination of amount due.-
(1) The Chief Executive Officer or any other officer appointed under sub-section (1) of
D section 7 authorised by him in this behalf may, by order, determine the amount due
under the provisions of this Act or of the Scheme from the employer, employee and
self-employed person and if the amount due is not paid on or before the due date he
shall issue a demand notice to the defaulter showing the amount of arrears.
(2) Any person aggrieved by the determination of arrears under sub-section (1) may file
a review petition before the authority who had determined the arrears, showing detailed
facts and reasons for reviewing the original determination within seven days of receipt
E of demand notice.
(3) A review petition filed under sub-section (2) shall be disposed of by the authority
within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt.
(4) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (3) may prefer an appeal
before the District Labour Officer of the concerned district and it staff be disposed of
by him within a period of sixty days from the date of its receipt.
(5) If the amount of arrears in dispute exceeds rupees one lakh, any person aggrieved by
F an order under sub-section (4) may prefer a second appeal before the Board and it shall
be disposed of within a period of sixty days from the date of its receipt.
(6) Every order passed under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) as the case may be,
shall be final.
(7) No appeal under this section shall be entertained unless the amount in accordance
with the order against which the appeal has been preferred is paid.
(8) If the appellate authority in an appeal decides that the amount paid is in excess of
G what is due from the appellant, it may, by order, direct for the refund of the excess
amount.
(9) An officer or authority exercising the power of appeal under sub-section (5) of
section 8 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Act. 1985, immediately
before the commencement of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2005 shall continue to exercise such powers, in respect of the
H case pending before such officer or authority.
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 999
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

issued by the High Court, not only the Scheme was amended, but Section A
8A came to be inserted in the 1985 Act vide Act 23 of 2005.
Simultaneously, by Act 24 of 2005, the 1976 Act came to be amended by
inserting sub-Sections (7) and (8) in Section 4 of that Act. The purport
of the inserted sub-Sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 was more or less in
line with the regime specified in Section 15 of the 1976 Act. Under the
B
1976 Act, by virtue of Section 10, any officer of the Motor Vehicles
Department not below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector
or any police officer in uniform not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, has
been empowered to stop any vehicle for the purpose of satisfying himself
that the amount of the tax due in respect of such vehicle has been paid.
26. Section 11 of the 1976 Act empowers the stated officers to C
seize and detain taxable motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State
of Kerala without payment of tax pending production of proof of payment
of the tax. Notably, these provisions have not been challenged. In one
sense, without the amended provisions, the permit issued under the 1988
Act would become ineffective in cases where action is taken under D
Sections 10 and 11 of the 1976 Act. Thus understood, Section 15 as well
as the amended Section 4(7) and (8) of the 1976 Act and Section 8A of
the 1985 Act would have the same effect in case of action taken by the
stated officers under Sections 10 and 11 of 1976 Act. The amended
provisions merely declare that position. It is nobody’s case merely because
on the basis of permit, the permit holder would be entitled to use vehicle E
or keep the vehicle for use within the State of Kerala without payment
of tax. The levy of tax shall be on the basis of rate specified under
Section 345 of the 1976 Act. Despite the repeal of 1939 Act, these
provisions of the 1976 Act continue to operate, thereby empowering the
45
F
3. Levy of Tax.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, on and from the date of commencement of this
Act, a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State, at the
rate specified for such vehicle in the Schedule:
Provided that no such tax shall be levied on a motor vehicle kept by a dealer in,
or a manufacturer of, such vehicle, for the purpose of trade and used under the
authorization of a trade certificate granted by the registering authority; G
provided further that in respect of a new motor vehicle of any of the classes
specified in item Nos.1(b), 2 and 11 of the Schedule to this Act, there shall be levied
from the date of purchase of the vehicle ‘one time tax’ at the rates specified in the
Annexure at the time of the first registration of the vehicle, and thereafter tax shall be
levied in the schedule as per the fourth proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4.
Provided further that in respect of new motor vehicle of any of the descriptions
specified in item No.1(a) of the Schedule to this Act, there shall be levied from the date H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A stated officers to act against the vehicle used or kept for use within the
State of Kerala without payment of vehicle tax.
27. Section 15 merely makes reference to the 1939 Act without
incorporation of any provision thereof. Resultantly, the repeal of that
Act will have no impact on the provisions of the 1976 Act, including in
B light of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In support of this

of purchase of the vehicle a tax in advance for a period of five years at the rate specified
in the schedule, at the time of first registration of the vehicle, and thereafter tax shall be
levied at the rate specified in the Schedule in accordance with the fourth proviso to sub
section (1) of Section 4.
(2) The Government may from time to time by notification in the Gazette, increase the
C rate of tax specified in the Schedule:
Provided that such increase shall not in the aggregate exceed fifty per cent of
such rate.
(3) The registered owner of, or any person having possession or control of a motor
vehicle shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to use or kept such vehicle for use
in the State, except during any period for which no tax is payable on such motor vehicle
under sub section (1) of Section 5.
D (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Government may, from
time to time, by notification in the Gazette, direct that a temporary licence for a period
not exceeding seven days or thirty days at a time may be issued in respect of any class
of motor vehicles specified in the Schedule on payment of the tax specified in sub-
section (5), and subject to such conditions as may be specified in such notification.
(5) The tax payable for a temporary licence in respect of a motor vehicle shall be-
E (a) where the temporary licence is for period not exceeding seven days, at the
rate of one-tenth of the quarterly tax on that motor vehicle; and
(b) where the temporary licence is for a period exceeding seven days but not
exceeding thirty days, at the rate of one third of the quarterly tax on that motor
vehicle:
Provided also that in the case of vehicles covered with permit under sub-
section (9) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of
F 1988) and registered in any State other than the State of Kerala and entering the
State of Kerala and staying therein, then, the tax payable for such vehicle shall
be-
(a) if such stay. does not exceed seven days one-tenth of the quarterly
tax; and
(b) if such stay exceeds seven days but does not exceed thirty days one
third of the quarterly tax
G (6) In the case of motor vehicles in respect of which any reciprocal arrangement relating
to taxation has been entered into between the Government of Kerala and any other
State Government, the levy of tax shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act
be in accordance with the terms and conditions of such reciprocal arrangement.:
Provided that the terms and conditions of every such reciprocal arrangement
shall be published in the Gazette and a copy thereof shall be placed before the Legislative
Assembly of the State.
H
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 1001
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

submission, reliance is placed on The Collector of Customs, Madras A
vs. Nathella Sampathu Chetty & Anr.46 and New Central Jute Mills
Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad & Ors.47.
28. Coming to the challenge to the amended provisions vide State
legislation in 2005, it is urged that the Parliament has not enacted any
law regarding levy of tax on motor vehicles. The 1988 Act does not deal B
with levy of tax on motor vehicles and the consequence of non-payment
of such tax. Whereas, the 1976 Act has been enacted by the State
Legislature under Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution, which is exclusively within the domain of the State
Legislature. The regime regarding payment of tax in respect of motor
vehicles and the consequence of non-payment, are, therefore, exclusive C
to the 1976 Act. Thus understood, there is no question of repugnancy
between the provisions of the 1988 Act and the State legislation in the
field occupied by the 1976 Act. Suffice it to observe contends the learned
senior counsel that Section 15 of the 1976 Act does not reduce the period
of validity of the permit issued under the 1988 Act, but it only stipulates D
that the vehicle tax due in respect of transport vehicle must be paid
within the prescribed period and thereby declaring that in case of non-
payment of tax, the validity period of permit cannot come in the way of
initiating action against the vehicle used or kept for use within the State
of Kerala without payment of vehicle tax. If so understood, there is no
conflict between the period prescribed in terms of Section 81(1) of the E
1988 Act and the provisions in the State legislation — be it the 1976 Act
or the 1985 Act.
29. As submitted earlier, the appellants have not challenged the
validity of Sections 10 and 11 of the 1976 Act in particular which empower
the stated officers to stop or seize and detain motor vehicles used or F
kept for use in the State of Kerala without payment of vehicle tax. The
amended provisions of the 1976 Act and the 1985 Act merely prescribe
the modalities for payment and collection of vehicle tax or payment of
contribution to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund by
requiring the employer/vehicle owner to produce receipt regarding
payment of contribution to the welfare fund before the Taxation Officer G
while offering to pay vehicle tax under the 1976 Act.
30. It is further urged that no argument can be countenanced that
the State Legislature lacks legislative competence to enact a law on the
46
AIR 1962 SC 316
47
(1970) 2 SCC 820 H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A subject of vehicle tax falling under Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution. The 1988 Act does not deal with either the
modalities for the payment or collection of vehicle tax as such. For which
reason, there is no inconsistency between the Central Act and the State
Act. According to the learned senior counsel, these appeals are devoid
of merits and, therefore, the decision of the Division Bench of the High
B
Court under appeal needs to be affirmed.
31. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both parties at
length.
32. After cogitating over the oral arguments and perusing the
C written submissions, it needs to be noted at the outset that there is no
challenge on the ground of legislative competence in respect of the 1976
Act and amendments thereto as well as the 1985 Act as amended. The
argument is essentially about repugnancy owing to the application of the
State laws to the vehicle permit issued under the law made by Parliament.
The tests of repugnancy have been delineated by the Constitution Bench
D in Deep Chand48. Three principles have been noted in this decision as
follows:
“(1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions;
(2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive
code in respect of the subject-matter replacing the Act of
E
the State Legislature; and
(3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by
State Legislature occupy the same field.”
33. We may usefully also refer to the decision in Thirumuruga
F Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical
Educational & Charitable Trust49 wherein the Court observed in
paragraph 26 as follows:
“26. It cannot, therefore, be said that the test of two legislations
containing contradictory provisions is the only criterion of
G repugnance. Repugnancy may arise between two enactments
even though obedience to each of them is possible without
disobeying the other if a competent legislature with a superior
efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention
48
Supra at Footnote No.22
49
Supra at Footnote No.25
H
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 1003
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

to cover the whole field. The contention of Shri Sanghi that there A
is no repugnancy between the proviso to Section 5(5) of the
Medical University Act and Section 10-A of the Indian Medical
Council Act because both can be complied with, cannot, therefore,
be accepted. What has to be seen is whether in enacting Section
10-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, Parliament has evinced
B
an intention to cover the whole field relating to establishment of
new medical colleges in the country.”
34. Keeping in mind the exposition of this Court in the
aforementioned decisions, we would immediately turn to the Act enacted
by the Parliament in 1988. This Act had repealed the erstwhile Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939. The Parliament has obviously enacted the 1988 Act C
in reference to Entry 35 in List III – Concurrent List which concerns the
mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes
on such vehicles are to be levied. Notably, the 1988 Act provides for
procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for
stage carriage permit as predicated in Section 7150 of the 1988 Act. The D
Authority while considering an application for grant of a stage carriage
50
71. Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for
stage carriage permit.— (1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, while considering
an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the objects of this Act.
(2) A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to grant a stage carriage permit if it
appears from any time-table furnished that the provisions of this Act relating to the E
speed at which vehicles may be driven are likely to be contravened:
Provided that before such refusal an opportunity shall be given to the applicant to
amend the time-table so as to conform to the said provisions.
(3)(a) The State Government shall, if so directed by the Central Government having
regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters, by
notification in the Official Gazette, direct a State Transport Authority and a Regional
Transport Authority to limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified F
type, as may be fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes in
towns with a population of not less than five lakhs.
(b) Where the number of stage carriages are fixed under clause (a), the Government of
the State shall reserve in the State certain percentage of stage carriage permits for the
scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes in the same ratio as in the case of appointments
made by direct recruitment to public services in the State.
G
(c) Where the number of stage carriages are fixed under clause (a), the Regional Transport
Authority shall reserve such number of permits for the scheduled castes and the scheduled
tribes as may be fixed by the State Government under sub-clause (b).
(d) After reserving such number of permits as is referred to in clause (c), the Regional
Transport Authority shall in considering an application have regard to the following
matters, namely:—
(i) financial stability of the applicant; H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A permit is obliged to have regard to the objects of the 1988 Act including
about the satisfactory performance of the applicant as a stage carriage
operator and payment of tax [Section 71(3)(d)(ii)]. The other relevant
provision for considering the subject-matter of this appeal is Section 81
dealing with duration and renewal of permits. It postulates that the permit
issued by the Authority under the Act shall be effective from the date of
B
issuance or renewal thereof for a period of five years. The proviso to
sub-section (1) envisages that where the permit is countersigned under
sub-section (1) of Section 88, such countersignature shall remain effective
without renewal for such period so as to synchronise with the validity of
the primary permit. We are not concerned with the effect of the proviso
C in the present case. The relevant sub-section dealing with the power of
the Authority to reject an application for the renewal of a permit is sub-
section (4) of Section 81. It provides for the grounds on which the renewal
of a permit can be rejected. The same includes plying any vehicle without
payment of tax due on such vehicle; and on any unauthorised route.
Besides these provisions, there is nothing in the 1988 Act to deal with
D
the manner of levy of vehicle tax or the collection thereof. In other
words, the law made by the Parliament does not occupy the field of
manner of levy of vehicle tax and collection thereof. If so, it is not possible
to hold that there is direct conflict between the two provisions, namely,
in the law made by the Parliament and by the State Legislature.
E Furthermore, on analysing the legislative intent and the efficacy of the
impugned provisions enacted by the State Legislature concerning the
manner of levy of vehicle tax and collection thereof, it will be amply
clear that obedience to each of the laws (made by the Parliament and
State Legislature) is possible without disobeying the other. We shall
F (ii) satisfactory performance as a stage carriage operator including payment of
tax if the applicant is or has been an operator of stage carriage service; and
(iii) such other matters as may be prescribed by the State Government:
Provided that, other conditions being equal, preference shall be given to
applications for permits from—
(i) State transport undertakings;
(ii) co-operative societies registered or deemed to have been registered under
G any enactment for the time being in force;
(iii) ex-servicemen; or
(iv) any other class or category of persons, as the State Government may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing consider necessary.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section “company” means any body corporate,
and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and “director”, in relation to a
firm, means a partner in the firm.
H
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 1005
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

elaborate on this aspect while dealing with efficacy of the law made by A
the State Legislature a little later. Suffice it to observe that the argument
regarding repugnancy is devoid of merit.
35. As regards the 1976 Act enacted by the State Legislature, the
same is ascribable to Entries 56 and 57 of List II – State List. Entry 56
deals with taxes on goods and passengers carried by road or on inland B
waterways. Entry 57 deals with taxes on vehicles, whether mechanically
propelled or not, suitable for use on roads, including tramcars subject to
the provisions of Entry 35 of List III. In one sense, the law made by the
State Legislature is also ascribable to Entry 35 of List III under which
the Parliament has already enacted 1988 Act. However, as
aforementioned, the law made by the Parliament, being 1988 Act, does C
not touch upon or deal with the field of manner of levy of vehicle tax and
collection thereof. Whereas, the 1976 Act enacted by the State
Legislature is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the levy of
tax on motor vehicles and on passengers and goods carried by such
vehicles in the State of Kerala. The levy of tax is spelt out in Section 3 of D
this Act. Section 4 deals with payment of tax and issue of licence. The
writ petitioners have challenged the amendment made to this provision
vide Act 24 of 2005 inserting sub-sections (7) and (8) therein. By this
amendment, it is provided that every registered owner or person having
possession or control of a motor vehicle in respect of a motor transport
undertaking liable to pay contribution under the 1985 Act shall, before E
effecting payment of vehicle tax under the 1976 Act, produce before the
Taxation Officer the receipt of remittance of the contribution towards
welfare fund due upto the preceding month and failure to do so, would
entail in refusal to collect the vehicle tax under the 1976 Act. In the
context of this provision, it has been urged that such a provision is in the F
nature of bootstrapping of two different liabilities. Section 851 mandates
production of certificate of insurance by every registered owner or person
having possession or control of a motor vehicle. Section 952 fastens liability
51
8.Production of certificate of insurance.- Every registered owner or person having
possession or control of a motor vehicle shall, at the time of making payment of the tax,
produce before the Taxation Officer a certificate of insurance in respect of the vehicle, G
which is valid at the time of making such payment, complying with the requirements of
Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939).
52
9.Liability to payment of tax by persons succeeding to the ownership, possession
or control of motor vehicles.-
(1) If the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person
liable for the payment thereof and such person before payment of tax has transferred
H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A to pay vehicle tax by person succeeding to the ownership, possession or
control of motor vehicles. Sections 10 and 11 are of some relevance.
The same reads thus:
“10. Power of officers of Police or Motor Vehicles
Department to stop motor vehicles.-
B (1) Any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department not below the
rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector or any police officer
in uniform who is not below the rank of a Sub Inspector may
require the driver of any motor vehicle in any place to stop such
vehicle and cause it to remain stationary so long as may reasonably
C be necessary for the purpose of satisfying himself that the amount
of the tax due in accordance with the provisions of this Act in
respect of such vehicle has been paid.
(2) Any person failing to stop a motor vehicle when required to do
so under sub-section (1) by any officer referred to in that sub-
D section or resisting any such officer when required under that
sub-section to stop a motor vehicle shall, on conviction, be
punishable with the same penalty as provided in section 16.
11. Seizure and detention of motor vehicles pending
production of proof of remittance of tax. – Any Officer not
E below the rank of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector authorized
in this behalf by the Government or any police officer not below
the rank of Sub-Inspector may, if he has reason to believe that a
taxable motor vehicle is used or kept for use in the State without
paying the tax, seize and detain that vehicle and make
arrangements for the safe custody of that vehicle pending
F production of proof of payment of the tax.”
Concededly, the validity of these two provisions have not been
assailed by the writ petitioners and, failure to do so, may have some
bearing on the view that we propose to take. Additionally, we may also
advert to Section 15 of the Act which is the subject-matter of challenge
G in these proceedings. The same reads thus:
the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession control of such vehicle,
the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person
who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax.
(2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to affect the liability to pay
the said tax of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in
H possession or control of such vehicle.
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 1007
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

“15. Transport Vehicle permit to be ineffective if tax not A
paid.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939) if the tax due in respect of a
transport vehicle is not paid within the prescribed period, the validity
of the permit for that vehicle shall become ineffective from the
date of expiry of the said period until such time as the tax is actually
B
paid.”
36. From the scheme of the 1976 Act, it is amply clear that it is
specific to levy of tax on motor vehicle and passengers and goods carried
by such vehicle in the State of Kerala. It is not a law regulating the
issuance of a permit by the Authority under the 1988 Act as such.
Indisputably, the permit issued by the Authority is hedged with conditions C
including the condition of regular payment of vehicle tax. Section 15
provides for the consequences for non-payment of tax consistent with
Sections 10 and 11 of the 1976 Act. Thus understood, there is no occasion
for conflict between the two provisions much less repugnancy.
37. As regards the argument regarding bootstrapping of liabilities D
of permit-holder under two different State legislations, it is to say the
least tenuous. It is open to the Legislature to combine levies for other
purposes, such as education cess, etc., for collection of tax due and
payable by the same tax-payer. It is one thing to say that the person is
being compelled to discharge liability under two different State enactments, E
although he is not liable under one of the two. That is not the argument
of these writ petitioners. The petitioners are not disputing their liability
under both the State Enactments. The argument, however, is that the
writ petitioners may intend to invoke remedy of appeal and revision in
respect of liability fastened under the 1985 Act. This argument has been
rightly negatived by the High Court in paragraph 18 of the impugned F
judgment by observing that sufficient safeguard has been provided under
the relevant enactment to file appeal/revision by remitting 50 per cent of
the amount demanded. The High Court issued directions in that regard
in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment. A circular has been issued
on 16.6.2007, clarifying that the aggrieved person, who prefers appeal G
on payment of 50 per cent of the contribution under the Welfare Fund
Act, is entitled to get a certificate to that effect and on production of that
certificate before the Taxing Authorities, the vehicle tax could be received
by the Authority without payment of the entire Welfare Fund of
contributions. The High Court has already issued directions to extend
H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A similar benefit even in cases where review petition is filed within the
prescribed time. The fact remains that no prejudice whatsoever is caused
to the permit-holder who intends to pursue remedy under the 1985 Act
against the demand received by him relating to the contribution of the
Welfare Fund.
B 38. Reverting to the 1985 Act enacted by the State Legislature,
indisputably, it is a welfare legislation constituting a fund to promote the
welfare of motor transport workers in the State of Kerala. This Act is
ascribable to Entries 23 and 24 of List III – Concurrent List. Entry 23
deals with social security and social insurance; employment and
unemployment and Entry 24 deals with welfare of labour including
C conditions of work, provident funds, employers’ liability, workmen’s
compensation, invalidity and old age pensions and maternity benefits.
Ostensibly, it may appear that the liability arising from the obligations
under the 1985 Act have nothing to do with the subject of vehicle tax.
However, the 1985 Act has been enacted with the objects and reasons
D noted. As a vast number of employees were being engaged in Motor
Transport Industry in the State in the private sector, the Government
thought it necessary to provide for the constitution of a Fund to promote
the welfare of such of the motor transport workers in the private sector
who are not covered by the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Payment of Gratuity Act,
E 1972. In other words, this Act came into being to ameliorate the difficulties
encountered by the motor transport workers in the State of Kerala. In
due course, it came to the notice of the Government that the system of
determination and assessment of contribution from employers and
adjudication of disputes, etc., as provided for in the 1985 Act had certain
F loopholes resulting in loss of welfare fund contribution. In that, the bus
operators set forth a defence by creating bogus partnerships and showing
relatives as employees to evade payment of contribution. Another device
was to keep on changing the employees frequently. Thus, to check this
mischief, an amendment was effected to the 1985 Act vide Act 23 of
2005 including to reduce the arbitrariness in fixing the contribution. The
G activities of motor transport workers are directly linked to the use and
operation of the motor transport vehicles having permit issued under the
1988 Act in that regard. Under the said Act, the permit-holder is obliged
to ensure that the vehicle tax is paid regularly. The law clearly provides
for action to be taken against the motor transport vehicle for failure to
H pay vehicle tax including to reject renewal of the permit. The stipulation
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 1009
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

in the 1985 Act is in the nature of ensuring that the vehicle owner/permit- A
holder discharges both the liabilities and does not commit default in
contributing to the welfare fund as also pay vehicle tax on time. Non-
payment of vehicle tax may entail in stopping of motor vehicle by the
Officers of Police or Motor Vehicles Department in exercise of power
under Section 10 of the 1976 Act including to seize and detain the same
B
pending production of proof remittance of tax as predicated in Section
11 of the Act. Additionally, the vehicle owner may have to suffer penalty
under Section 1653 and face prosecution under Section 1754, besides the
permit being rendered ineffective if tax is not paid by virtue of Section
15.
39. Considering the scheme of the State legislations, it is C
incomprehensible to countenance the argument that the two provisions
(of 1988 Act on the one hand and of 1976 Act and 1985 Act on the

53
16. Penalties.- Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or any rule
made thereunder shall, on conviction, if no other penalty is elsewhere provided in this D
Act or the rules for such contravention, be punishable with fine which may extend to
one hundred rupees and, in the event of such person having been previously convicted
of an offence under this Act or any rule made thereunder with fine which may extend to
two hundred rupees.
54
17. Offences by companies.-
(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person
who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, E
the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company,
shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such
person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without
his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such
offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where an offence under this F
Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been
committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the
part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director,
manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and
shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this section-
(a)”company” means a body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of
G
individuals; and
(b) “director”, in relation to -
(i) a firm, means a partner in the firm.,
(ii) a society or other association of individuals, means the person who is
entrusted under the rules of the society or other association with the management
of the affairs of the society or other association, as the case may be. H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R.

A other) are inconsistent in any manner whatsoever. Whereas, the State
enactments are complementary and can be given effect to without any
disobedience to the Central legislations. As aforementioned, the 1988
Act does not cover the field of the manner of levy of vehicle tax and
collection thereof. The same is covered by the State legislations.
B 40. Concededly, the appellants have not disputed their liability to
pay the vehicle tax levied under the 1976 Act as well as to pay contribution
towards the workers’ welfare fund under the 1985 Act. So understood,
the real grievance in these appeals by the motor transport vehicle owners/
permit-holders is about compelling them to pay the welfare contribution
dues as a precondition for collection of vehicle tax. We have no hesitation
C in taking the view that such dispensation cannot be construed as
unconstitutional. Further, such a plea cannot be countenanced at the
instance of someone who otherwise concedes liability to pay both the
dues towards welfare fund contribution and vehicle tax. It is beyond
comprehension that the vehicle owner/permit-holder can be heard to
D argue that he would not pay the dues under the 1985 Act and, yet, would
continue with the business of motor transport as usual in the State of
Kerala by exploiting the workers on the specious plea that the validity of
the permit to operate transport vehicle cannot be interdicted under a
State legislation. The provision in the form of Section 15 of the 1976 Act
is in the nature of restating the consequences flowing from Sections 10
E and 11 of the same Act to stop motor vehicle and to seize and detain the
same if being used or operated without payment of vehicle tax. When
action is taken by the competent authority under Sections 10 and 11 of
the Act, inevitably, the transport vehicle in question for which permit has
been taken is rendered unusable due to non-payment of vehicle tax. The
F liability of the vehicle owner/permit-holder to pay welfare fund
contribution as well as to pay vehicle tax arises under the legislation
enacted by the State Legislature. As such, there is nothing wrong in
State Legislature making it compulsory to pay outstanding welfare fund
contribution first before accepting the vehicle tax which had become
due and payable. In this view of the matter, it would be unnecessary to
G dilate on the argument regarding validity of Section 15 of the 1976 Act
because of lack of Presidential assent after coming into effect of the
1988 Act.
41. We cannot be oblivious about the legislative intent for enacting
the 1985 Act and the amendment effected thereto in 2005. The same is
H
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSN., KOTTAYAM UNIT, REP. BY 1011
ITS SECY. v. THE STATE OF KERALA [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

a beneficial legislation with avowed objective to ensure strict compliance A
of payment of welfare fund contribution to protect the workers of the
commercial operations undertaken by the vehicle owners/permit-holders
pursuant to a permit issued under the 1988 Act, and is to reach out to
such workers who are typically unorganised and a part of informal
workforce. Neither the provisions of the 1985 Act or the 1976 Act have
B
the effect of interdicting the permit issued under the 1988 Act. The real
intent and purpose behind these provisions is to restate the mandate
stated in the 1988 Act that the vehicle cannot be used on road without a
valid permit and payment of vehicle tax up to date.
42. A priori, we have no hesitation in concluding that the provisions
of the 1976 Act and the 1985 Act, enacted by the State Legislature, are C
only intended to ensure that the vehicle owner/permit-holder does not
remain in arrears of either the welfare fund contribution or the vehicle
tax both payable under the State enactments. These provisions are in no
way in conflict with the law made by the Parliament (1988 Act). The
State enactments do not create any new liability or obligation in relation D
to the permit issued under the 1988 Act (Central legislation), but it provides
for dispensation to ensure timely collection of the welfare fund contribution
as well as vehicle tax payable by the same vehicle owner/permit-holder.
43. While parting, we must note that the writ petitioners through
their counsel had fairly accepted during oral argument that after the E
2005 amendment, for all these years they have been following the
dispensation provided under the State legislations without exception. In
that sense, the challenge has become academic. Be that as it may, we
have negatived the stand taken by the writ petitioners regarding the
validity of the amended provisions being repugnant to the law made by
the Parliament. F

44. In view of the above, these appeals must fail and the same
are dismissed with costs.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
G
Divya Pandey and Amarendra Kumar Appeals dismissed.
(Assisted by : Pragya Samal, LCRA)

H