Tax on passengers and goods by road upheld as valid despite measurement by fares and freights

A tax on passengers and goods carried by motor vehicles remained within the legislative field even though the amount was measured by fares and freights, because the taxable event was carriage itself and not income or the fares and freights as such. The challenge based on freedom of trade, equality, and reasonableness failed because the levy applied uniformly to intra-State carriage and no hostile discrimination was shown. Permissive lump-sum payment provisions were upheld as a valid alternative mode of payment under the statute and not excessive delegation. The classification based on road surface and the proviso for journeys through another State were also sustained as rational and not unconstitutional.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the levy was a tax on passengers and goods within the legislative entry, although measured by fares and freights; (ii) whether the Act, Rules and notification were invalid as repugnant to the freedom of trade and commerce, equality, and reasonableness guarantees; (iii) whether the lump-sum payment provisions and notification were beyond the Act or amounted to excessive delegation; and (iv) whether the classification based on road surface and the proviso relating to journeys passing through another State were unconstitutional.

Issue (i): Whether the levy was a tax on passengers and goods within the legislative entry, although measured by fares and freights.

Analysis: The charging provision imposed tax in respect of passengers carried and goods transported by motor vehicles. The amount of tax was only measured by the fare or freight charged, and the measure did not alter the true incidence of the levy. Even where no fare or freight was actually charged, the tax remained payable, which showed that the taxable event was the carriage of passengers and goods and not income or fares and freights as such.

Conclusion: The levy was validly referable to the entry authorising taxes on passengers and goods carried by road, and the contention that it was a tax on income or on fares and freights failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Act, Rules and notification were invalid as repugnant to the freedom of trade and commerce, equality, and reasonableness guarantees.

Analysis: The levy operated only on carriage by road within the State, and the scheme limited the charge to the portion of the journey within the State. The comparison with railway taxation was inapt because railway fares and freights fell under the Union field. The Act applied uniformly to all similarly placed operators, and no hostile discrimination or unreasonable restriction was established on the materials before the Court.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Articles 301, 304, 19 and 14 failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the lump-sum payment provisions and notification were beyond the Act or amounted to excessive delegation.

Analysis: The Act permitted the Government to accept a lump sum in lieu of tax, leaving the choice to the taxpayer. The Rules and notification only fixed the amount of the lump sum when that option was chosen. Read harmoniously, they did not convert the permissive statutory scheme into a compulsory one, nor did they negate the option created by the Act. The fixation of lump-sum rates was supported by the statutory scheme and did not amount to uncontrolled delegation.

Conclusion: The lump-sum provisions, the Rules and the notification were intra vires and valid.

Issue (iv): Whether the classification based on road surface and the proviso relating to journeys passing through another State were unconstitutional.

Analysis: A higher levy on roads involving greater construction and maintenance cost was treated as a rational distinction based on the burden and convenience associated with the use of better roads. The challenge to the proviso relating to routes traversing another State was rejected for want of adequate factual foundation and because the levy was confined to the portion properly attributable within the State scheme.

Conclusion: No unconstitutional discrimination or invalid extra-territorial operation was established.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme for taxing passengers and goods carried by motor vehicles, including the optional lump-sum method of payment, was upheld in its entirety and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax imposed on passengers and goods carried by road remains within the legislative field even when its amount is measured by fares and freights, and permissive lump-sum collection provisions are valid if they merely provide an alternative mode of payment under the statute.

---