High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2013-08-27Writ appeal allowed; impugned judgment vacated;...

Fathima Shirin v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Kayamkulam; Regional Transport Officer, Alappuzha; Deputy Transport Commissioner, South Zone, Thiruvananthapuram; Transport Commissioner, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WA.No.968 of 2013

Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2013-08-27
Court Decision / Holding: Writ appeal allowed; impugned judgment vacated. It is declared that the tax under the MVT Act on the vehicle shall be computed on Rs. 881,004.41 (the purchase value as per the original invoice). The competent authority shall accept the appellant’s application for registration if otherwise in order and quash any contrary demand.
Final Disposition: Writ appeal allowed; impugned judgment vacated; registration to be granted on compliance; tax to be calculated on invoice value only; any contrary demand quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Fathima Shirin

Respondents

Joint Regional Transport Officer, Kayamkulam
Regional Transport Officer, Alappuzha
Deputy Transport Commissioner, South Zone, Thiruvananthapuram
Transport Commissioner, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram
State of Kerala represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Motor Vehicles Department

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Vijayan K.U.
• Sri. K.N. Sreekumaran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Sudheesh Kumar (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ appeal challenges the levy of motor vehicle tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 (MVT Act) on a vehicle purchase where the invoice shows a purchase value of Rs 881,004.41 and VAT is added to reach a total of Rs 999,940. The appellant argues that Section 2(e) of the MVT Act defines purchase value as the value shown in the original invoice, and that VAT or any other tax cannot be included in determining the purchase value for tax under the Act. The authorities contend that the amount paid by the end consumer reflects the price and must be treated as the basis for levy, and that the invoice predating a VAT rate hike may have been used to avoid higher liability. The learned Single Judge held that the date of registration is decisive under the MVT Act. In the appeal, the government relies on VAT provisions and constitutional and commercial laws, while the appellant relies on the literal interpretation of the term "purchase value." The court reinforces that the definition is hard and fast: when a statute uses the word "means," or defines a term, the meaning is exclusive. Citing Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and other authorities (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly; Gough v. Gough; P. Kasilingam v. P.S. College of Technology), the court holds that the purchase value cannot include VAT or related charges beyond the invoice value. Consequently, tax must be computed on Rs 881,004.41, the invoice value. The competent authority is directed to grant registration if otherwise in order and quash any contrary demand. Writ appeal allowed; impugned judgment vacated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 – Section 2(e) (definition of 'purchase value')Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 – Section 3(1)Proviso to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003Constitution of India – Article 245Constitution of India – Article 265Sale of Goods Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

When the legislature uses the word 'means', the definition is a hard-and-fast one and no other meaning can be assigned to the term so defined.
A definition is an explicit statement of the full connotation of a term.
Literal/plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation; the term 'purchase value' must be read as defined, without importing VAT or other charges beyond the invoice value.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued that the levy under the MVT Act is based on the value of the vehicle as per the original purchase invoice; Section 2(e) defines 'purchase value' as the invoice value; VAT and any additional charge cannot be loaded into the 'purchase value' for tax calculation; the proviso to Section 2(e) provides only for cases where the invoice is unavailable, not to redefine the purchase value in an invoice-based sale.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the price paid by the consumer includes VAT, and the amount spent should be treated as the price for tax purposes; the date of registration and VAT rate changes can influence the tax liability; the State may seek to ensure that the taxpayer pays the amount equivalent to the price paid, including VAT, for levy under the MVT Act.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court	(1990) 3 SCC 682	Positive	Used to support the proposition that the word 'means' in a statute defines a hard-and-fast meaning; definitions are exclusive.
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly	[AIR 1986 SC 1571]	Positive	Cited as authority reinforcing interpretive principle relating to statutory definitions of terms like 'purchase value'.
Gough v. Gough	[1891] 2 QB 665	Positive	Cited as part of the authorities illustrating the interpretation doctrine invoked by the court.
P. Kasilingam v. P.S. College of Technology	[AIR 1995 SC 1395]	Positive	Cited for principles on interpretational rigour of statutory terms and definitions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Fathima Shirin v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Kayamkulam; Regional Transport Officer, Alappuzha; Deputy Transport Commissioner, South Zone, Thiruvananthapuram; Transport Commissioner, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH** **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/5TH BHADRA, 1935** **WA.No. 968 of 2013 ()** **-----------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15346/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24-06-2013** **------** **APPELLANT/APPELLANT :** **------------------** **FATHIMA SHIRIN,W/O.MR.ASJAD, MIDHIL COTTAGE, KRISHNAPURAM P.O KAYAMKULAM 690 533, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U., SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN** **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :** **----------------------** **1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KAYAMKULAM PIN 690 502.** **2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER** - **ALAPPUZHA PIN 688 001.** ## **3. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER** - **SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **4. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 014.** **5. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** ## **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUDHEESH KUMAR** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-07-2013, THE COURT ON 27-08-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## “CR” ## Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & Babu Mathew P.Joseph, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A.No.968 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27[th] day of August, 2013 ## Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.Does the purchase value of a vehicle, for the purpose of levy of tax under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, include the tax suffered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act? 2.Appellant purchased a motor vehicle as per retail invoice which shows the unit price, gross value and net value of that vehicle as Rs.881004.41. Value Added Tax(VAT) levied is added to make up the amount total payable to be Rs.999940.00 The authority under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975, for short, 'MVT Act', insisted on adding WA968/13 **==> picture [28 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** not only the VAT component reflected by the retail invoice, but also an additional component towards VAT attributed to revision of rate of VAT. The challenge to such demand was negatived by the learned single Judge holding that the date of registration is what is relevant under the MVT Act. The appellant stood criticised on behalf of the Department that an invoice was generated in March, 2013 anticipating a hike in VAT by April, 2013. 3.In this appeal against the decision of the learned single Judge, among other grounds raised on the basis of the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, Articles 245 and 265 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for short, the 'VAT Act', it is specifically contended and argued that the levy can be only on the purchase value of the vehicle, which does not include VAT or any other tax or duty, having regard to the definition of the term “purchase value” in WA968/13 -: 3 :- Section 2(e) of the MVT Act. Levy under the VAT Act also appears to be indicative that, in no way, the VAT component could be brought as part of the 'purchase value' of the vehicle for the purpose of determining the tax under the MVT Act, it is argued. 4.Learned Government Pleader, supporting the impugned judgment pointed out that the instance in hand could be a case of predated issuance of invoice, with intention to get over the additional liability of increased rate of VAT, applicable with effect from 1.4.2013. He also argued that the amount suffered by the end consumer, that is, the amount spent by the purchaser of the vehicle, is to be treated as the price paid for the purchase of the vehicle and such amount should be treated as the basis for the levy of tax under the MVT Act. - 5.Section 3(1) of the MVT Act provides for levy of tax on every motor vehicle falling within that WA968/13 **==> picture [28 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** provision, at the rates specified for such vehicle in the Schedule. Serial No.A in Annexure-I of that Schedule provides for, among other things, payment of one time tax for new motor vehicles. The rate of one time tax is fixed at a percentage of the purchase value of the vehicle. Section 2(e) of the MVT Act provides that “purchase value” means the value of the vehicle as shown in the original purchase invoice. When the legislature uses the tool “means”, it means what is said and nothing beyond. When a statute says that a word or phrase shall 'mean' certain things or acts, the definition is a hard-and-fast one, and no other meaning can be assigned to the term so defined. A definition is an explicit statement of the full connotation of a term. Where an interpretation clause defines a word to mean a particular thing, that definition is explanatory and prima facie restrictive - See Punjab Land Devl. & Reclamation Corpn.Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court [(1990) 3 SCC 682], Central Inland Water WA968/13 -: 5 :- Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly [AIR 1986 SC 1571], Gough v. Gough [(1891) 2 QB 665], P.Kasilingam v. P.S.G.College of Technology [AIR 1995 SC 1395]. Applying this well settled principle of law, the definition “purchase value” in Section 2(e) of the MVT Act cannot be anything beyond the value of the vehicle as shown in the original purchase invoice. 6.If the purchase value of any vehicle is not ascertainable on account of non-availability of the invoice, the purchase value shall be the value or price at which the vehicle of like kind or same specifications is already registered or available with the manufacturer, or as fixed by the Customs and Central Excise Department for the purpose of levying customs duty, as the case may be. This provision, incorporated as a proviso to Section 2(e) provides abundant intrinsic statutory material to understand the term “purchase value” as defined in Section 2(e), WA968/13 -: 6 :- beyond any shadow of doubt. The purchase value can never be determined by adding on the VAT component or any customs duty or other charges, over and above the value or price of the vehicle. This is how the “purchase value” has to be determined for the purpose of levy of tax under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the MVT Act, to the extent such levy is dependent on the Schedule to that Act, prescribing the rate of one time tax, on the basis of the purchase value of the vehicle. For the aforesaid reasons, tax that could be levied under the MVT Act for the vehicle covered by the invoice which is Ext.P2 in the writ petition from which this appeal arises shall be determined applying the rate applicable in terms of that Act, on Rs.881004.41, which is the purchase value of that vehicle. It is so declared. The competent authority among the respondents shall accept the appellant's application for registration of the vehicle in WA968/13 **==> picture [28 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** terms of this declaration and grant registration, if the application is otherwise in order. Any demand contrary to this declaration shall stand quashed hereby. Writ appeal is ordered accordingly, vacating the impugned judgment. Sd/Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan Judge Sd/Babu Mathew P.Joseph Judge Sha/ ## -true copy- P.S.to Judge.