1996 (10) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er their vehicles under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that the same is not permissible in view of section 4E of the Act till taxes on entry of the said vehicles are paid. 2.. According to the averments made in the writ petitions, the petitioners do not fall in the category of "dealer" as defined under clause (4) of section 2 of the Act and therefore keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Arun Manikchand Shah v. State of Karnataka [1995] 45 ILR Kar 3080, they are not liable to pay any tax on the entry of their vehicles and as such refusal to register their vehicles is arbitrary and illegal.   3.. In the case of Arun Manikchand Shah [1995] 45 ILR Kar 3080, keeping in view the e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(4) of section 2, inter alia signifies a person who in the course of business brings any goods in any local area. Therefore, for being a dealer under the provisions of the Act, a person need not be necessarily dealing in the goods which has been caused to be brought into the local area. For being a dealer under the Act, it will suffice if he brings the said goods in the course of any business conducted by him, because the expression 'business' includes any transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary to trade, commerce, etc. For example, if a person carrying on transport business, though in common parlance may not be a dealer in motor vehicles in the sense of selling and purchasing motor vehicles, imports a vehicle into the Sta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nor the Act has been assented to by the President even subsequently, if any, as provided under article 255 of the Constitution of India. 7.. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Hansa Corporation AIR 1981 SC 463, the Supreme Court while considering the constitutional validity of the Act, has, inter alia, held that "to the extent the impugned tax is levied on the entry of goods in a local area it cannot be gainsaid that its immediate impact would be on movement of goods and the measure would fall within the inhibition of the article 301". But since it was found as a matter of fact that the President had accorded his sanction to the Act impugned therein, therefore it was held that the requirement of proviso to article 304(b)/255 of the Con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hose additional restrictions are reasonable and in public interest ; (c) that the legislative measure imposing the additional restrictions, viz., section 7(1)(a) of the amending Act 13 of 1982 required compliance with proviso to article 304(b) or article 255 of the Constitution; (d) that there having been no such compliance with article 304(b) of the Constitution and the provisions of section 7(1)(a) and 7(15) of the amending Act 13 of 1982 are unenforceable until such compliance is shown." 10.. In the present case as well, it cannot be disputed that the impugned deletion of section 28 of the Act results in subjecting the whole class of persons, namely, those falling in the category of non-dealers within the meaning of the Act to t....