http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: SHAIK MADAR SAHEB AND ORS.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/12/1971

BENCH: MITTER, G.K. BENCH: MITTER, G.K. SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) SHELAT, J.M. DUA, I.D. KHANNA, HANS RAJ

CITATION:  1972 AIR 1804            1972 SCR  (2) 853

ACT: Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (5 of 1963),  ss. 3 and 17-Interstate routes-Enhancement of tax-Validity. Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 301 and 304-Tax if should be reasonable and in public interest.

HEADNOTE: Under  s.  3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor  Vehicles  Taxation Act, 1963, the State Government is empowered by notification to  direct  that  the tax should be levied  on  every  motor vehicle used or kept for use in a public place in the State, subject  to  the maximum specified in  the  First  Schedule. Section  17  of the Act vests in the  State  Government  the power to amend the Schedules in the manner prescribed. In   1963,  the  State  Government  issued  a   notification increasing  the  taxes and, in 1968,  the  State  Government amended  the  First Schedule and increased the  maximum  tax payable and issued a notification directing the substitution of the higher rates.  Both the increases were challenged  by the appellants but the High Court dismissed the petitions. In  appeal  to this Court it was contended that  :  (1)  the restrictions  imposed  by the tax were  unreasonable  having regard to Art. 19(1)(g) read with cl. (6) and Art. 301;  (2) since part of the route lay outside the respondent-State the levy  in  respect  of the entire mileage  could  not  be  of compensate  nature; and (3) there was no  justification  for levying tax on spare buses. Dismissing the appeals, HELD  :  (1)  (a) The facts and  figures  disclosed  in  the counter   affidavits  of  the.   State  do  not  justify   a conclusion  that the levy was a general one  for  augmenting the  revenues of the State.  Even after the levy  the  total receipts from the tax fell short of expenditure on roads and allied purposes.  The enhancement was only intended to  meet the  expanding requirements of maintenance of old roads  and development  of the road system as a whole and is  therefore only a compensatory measure. [862 G-H] (b)Further,  the impost would not result in bus  operators running  their business at a loss, especially when they  had been permitted to increase the fares. [862 H]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

(c) The figures relied upon by the appellants in the  report of the Road Transport Taxation Inquiry Committee do not give a completely accurate picture relevant to the present  case. [860 E-G] Nazeeria  Motor Services v. Andhra Pradesh, [1970] 2  S.C.R. 52. followed. (2)There  were reciprocal arrangements between the  States and consequently the provisions made by the other States  in regard to the 7-L736SupCI/72 854 free  movement  on their roads  constituted  a  compensatory measure for the tax even though it was wholly levied by  the respondent State. [862 F-G] (3)It was imperative for the owner of a fleet of buses  to maintain spare vehicles to be available for substitution  in case  of  breakdown.  Accordingly, the levy of tax  on  such buses which can at any time be put on the road is  justified and  s. 3 empowers the State to levy such a tax on  a  motor vehicle kept for use. [863 A-C]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 932 to 934 of 1968. Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 6,  1963 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 361, 430  and 706 of 1963 and Civil Appeals Nos. 1439 to 1441  of 1968. Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 26, 1968  of the  Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.  1792, 1818 and 1819 of 1968 and Writ Petitions Nos. 164 and 166 of 1968. Under  Article  32  of the Constitution  of  India  for  the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. S.V. Gupte, K. Srinivasamurthy, Naunit Lal and  Swaranjit Sodhi,  for  the  appellants (in all the  appeals)  and  the Petitioners (in both the Petitions). P.   Ram  Reddy and G. Narayana Rao, for respondents Nos.  1 and  2 (in C.A. No. 932 of 1968). P.   Ram  Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the  respondents  (in C.A. Nos. 933 and 934 of 1968). P.Ram Reddy and K. Javaram, for the respondents (in  C.A. Nos.  1439  to 1441 of 1968 and W.Ps. Nos. 164  and  166  of 1968). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. All these appeals and Writ Petitions are directed against the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (V of 1963)  and  notifications issued thereunder.  In  the  first group of appeals, the notification challenged is G.O.Ms. No. 601  Home (Transport 11) Department dated 27th March,  1963. In the second group of appeals Nos. 1439-1441/68 and in  the two writ petitions the impugned notification is numbered as G.O.Ms.  No. 435 Home (Transport 11) Department dated  March 28, 1968. 855 The  appellants and the writ petitioners carry on  transport business  in  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  tinder  stage carriage permits granted by the Transport authorities under the Motor ’Vehicles Act IV of 1939.  Their complaint against the ever increasing burden of taxation they are called  upon to bear which is said to have passed the breaking point.   A short history of the taxes levied in the area which came  to Andhra  Pradesh  from the State of Madras and  the  increase

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

thereof  from stage to stage by the new State based  on  the seating  capacity  of  buses  with  stage  carriage  permits referred  to in the pleadings is recited in the judgment  of this Court in Nazeeria Motor Service v. A. P. State(1).  The latest  legislation  on the subject which  was  before  this Court  in that case was Validating Act of 1961  raising  the rate  to  Rs. 37-50 per seat per quarter per  bus  effective from   April  1,  1962.   The  Court  upheld   the   impost. Thereafter,  the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation  Act (Act  V of 1963) came into force on the 20th March  of  that year after receiving the assent of the President on February 2,  1963.   This is the Act now in force.  It is an  Act  to consolidate  and  amend the law relating to levy  a  tax  on motor  vehicles  in the State of Andhra Pradesh.   Under  s. 3(1)  of  the  Act  the State  Government  is  empowered  by notification  from time to time, to direct that a tax  shall be  levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in  a public  place  in the State.  Under sub-s. (2) of s.  3  the notification  is to specify the class of motor  vehicles  on which, the rates for the periods of which and the date  from which,  the tax is to be levied.  Under the proviso  to  the sub-section  the rates of tax are not to exceed the  maximum specified in column (2) of the First Schedule.  S. 17 of the Act  vests  in  the  State Government  power  to  amend  the schedules in the manner prescribed. On  March 27, 1963 a notification No. G.O.M. 601 was  issued by the State Government in its Transport Department imposing a  tax  of Rs. 60 per seat per quarter on  vehicles  running less  than  100  miles per day and  Rs.  67-50  on  vehicles covering  a higher mileage.  A crop t of writ petitions  was filed before the High Court in the year 1963 praying for the issue,  of a writ restraining the State, from enforcing  the provisions of the Act of 1963 and of the notification  dated March  27,  1963.   By a common  judgment  and  order  dated September  6,  1963 the High Court dismissed  all  the  writ petitions.   The first group of appeals arises out  of  this judgment. It  was  contended on behalf of the petitioners  before  the High  Court in that case, the appellants in the first  group of appeals before us, that the statute was inconsistent with the  doctrine of freedom of trade and commerce  embodied  in Part  XIII  of  the  Constitution  and  secondly  ;that   it infringed the equality clause (1)  [1970] 2 S.C.R. 52. 856 enshrined in Art. 14.  An attempt was made, on behalf of the petitioners  by reference to certain figures  regarding  the income  of  the  State  from this  source  of  tax  and  the expenditure  pertaining  to this topic that the  taxes  were levied  more  for purposes of general revenue of  the  State than  as  a  benefit  for the  facilities  afforded  to  the operators of transport vehicles, since the taxes were far in excess of the requirements for the construction of new roads and bridges and the maintenance of existing ones.  The  High Court found itself unable to accept the above submission and on a scrutiny of the budget estimates for the year  1963-64, the receipts under the Taxation Act, the amount collected by way of taxes on the sale of motor spirits allocable to  this head,  came to the conclusion that the whole  revenue  would not exceed Rs. 6 crores while the expenditure incurred would exceed  Rs. 8,54,00,000.  The finding of the High Court  was that               "far  from  there being any surplus  over  the               expenditure,  the taxes collected  under  this               head were insufficient to meet the demands  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

             this respect." According to the High Court the object of the Act being only to  raise  the money required to afford  facilities  to  the operators of the transport vehicles, the tax levied answered the  description of compensatory tax and did  not  interfere with  the freedom of trade and commerce.  As such the  taxes were  held not to offend Art. 301 of the Constitution.   The High Court further took the view that it had not been  shown that  "the  power  ceded to the  State  Government  by  this legislative measure was in any way detrimental to the public good  or  that  it  was  opposed  to  the  well   recognised principles underlying taxation." The High Court turned  down the contention that the taxes in question were arbitrary  or oppressive or that they constituted an unbearable burden  so as to destroy the very business of the writ petitioners.  On the facts before the court as disclosed in the affidavits it did not feel disposed to hold that the operators were  doing business at a loss.  It also took the view that the increase in  the fares sanctioned simultaneously with the raising  of the taxes had proved beneficial to the operators.  Reference was made to the fact that even subsequent to the enhancement of  the  tax  there had been  considerable  competition  for securing  permits  whenever any proposal was mooted  by  the transport  authorities which according to the court went  to show that the operators themselves considered that it  would be a profitable business.  In the opinion of the High Court, the increase in the taxes was more than offset by the  sanc- tioned  increase  in  the fares and  the  grievance  of  the operators  that the taxes were an  unreasonable  restriction was  negatived.   Finally  the High  Court  held  that  the- impugned Act had survived the test laid down by Art.  304(b) of  the Constitution and had not transgressed the limits  of reasonableness. 857 It  is not necessary for the disposal of these  appeals  and writ petitions to go into the question of violation of  Art. 14  as that point was not canvassed in view of the  decision of this Court in Nazeeria Motor Service case(1). On March 22, 1968 the Government of Andhra Pradesh purported to amend the First Schedule to the Act by ,notification  No. 434  by increasing the maximum quarterly tax in  respect  of subitems  (iii) and (iv) of item 4 to Rs. 121 in respect  of buses Plying exclusively within municipal limits and to  Rs. 135  in the case of other buses.  On the same day the  State Government  issued notification No. 435 in exercise  of  the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of s. 9 of the Act  directing the substitution of higher taxes in respect of buses covered by  the  aforementioned  subitems of item  4  of  the  First Schedule.   The  new  notification  No.  435  provided   for different  rates according to mileage; at the lower  end  of the  scale i.e. for a distance of 50 miles per day the  rate was Rs. 40 per quarter per seat while in the case where  the distance exceeded 200 miles the tax was raised to Rs.  II  0 per seat per quarter.  In effect, the petitioners contended, the incidence of tax was increased by about 50 per cent.  It was also claimed that the procedure adopted for the levy  of the tax had been changed and instead of a flat rate of  levy on  the  basis  of the number of seats it was  now  made  to relate  to  the  actual  mileage  per  day  covered  by  the vehicles.  A challenge was made to the additional impost  on spare buses which bus operators running more than a  certain number  of buses per day were obliged to reserve for use  in the event of any break-down.  It was asserted that even  for these  buses, no matter whether they were actually  used  or not,  tax  was levied at the rate of Rs. 30  per  seat per

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

quarter. The  points  of law raised by this set of  writ  petitioners before the High Court were (a)that prior sanction of the President as required  under Art. 304(b) was not obtained in respect of the levy inasmuch as such sanction was given in February and the levy was made towards  the end of March.  As such it was said  G.O.M.  435 was unconstitutional and void. (b)the  proposed  increase in the rate of tax was  not  in public interest but only a revenue yielding measure.   Since it did not company with the provisions of Part III and  Part XIII    of   the   Constitution   it   was    illegal    and unconstitutional. and (c) the levy of tax on spare buses was illegal. By a common judgment and order dated April 26, 1968 the High Court  rejected  the contentions raised and  dismissed  this group of writ petitions.  This had led to the filing of  the second group of appeals before us. (1) [1970] 2 S.C.R. 52 858 The  two  writ petitions filed in this Court under  Art.  32 raise identical questions. In  Nazeeria Motor Service case(1) the central question  was the  constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh Motor  Vehicles (Taxation   of’   Passengers;  and  Goods)   Amendment   and Validation Act XXXIV of 1961.  The points urged in that case before this Court were :- 1.The  Act imposed a tax for augmenting revenues  of  the State.  It was neither regulatory nor compensatory in nature and  fell  directly  within  the ban  of  Art.  301  of  the Constitution. 2.Even though there had been compliance with the  proviso to  Art.  304(b) in the matter of obtaining the  requisite sanction,  it was open to the Court to go into the  question of reasonableness both with regard to the said provision  as also  Art. 19(1)(g) read with cl. (6) of that article.   The Court  was entitled to determine whether the imposition  was in public interest. 3.The  Act violated Art. 14 of the Constitution  inasmuch as  it  was not made applicable to all the areas  under  the State and vehicles on inter-State routes on permits  granted by  other States had not been subjected to tax in  the  same way. In  deciding  that appeal this Court referred to  the  views expressed in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v.  State of  Rajasthan & Ors. (2), Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. &  Anr.  v. State  of  Assam(2) and Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd.  v.  State  of Assam (4 ) and held that notwithstanding compliance with the provisions  of the proviso to Art. 304(b) by  obtaining  the previous  sanction  of the President to the Bill an  Act  of this  nature could be held to be valid only if it was  shown that the restrictions imposed were reasonable and in  public interest. It  was  not contended on behalf of the State in  that  case that the impugned Validating Act imposed a tax which was  by way  of  regulatory  or  compensatory  measure.   The  Court therefore  addressed  itself  to the  question  whether  the restrictions imposed were reasonable and in public  interest within   the   meaning   of  Art.   304(b).    Taking   into consideration  the  finding  of  the  High  Court  that  the computation  of income by the Income-tax Department of  some of the transporters, the income in regard to each bus was of the  order of Rs. 7,000 per annum as well as the  fact  that although permitted to charge higher rates the bus  operators had  not  either  a& a matter of policy or  for  purpose  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

business  competition done so, the Court took the view  that the  restriction imposed was not unreasonable.  Nothing  was shown either before the High Court (1)  [1970] 2 S.C.R. 52 (3)  [1964] 5 S.C.R. 975. (2)  [1963] 1 S.C.R. 491. (4)  [1961] 1 S.C.R. 809. 859 or  before  this  Court  to  establish  that  the   impugned Validating  Act with regard to imposition of tax was not  in public  interest. The utmost according to this  Court  "that could be said was that it would result in the diminution  of profits." The Court also turned down the contention based on the  vio- lation of Art. 14. In  the first set of appeals now before us  learned  counsel for  the appellants submitted that in view of  the,  earlier decision   of  this  Court  the  only  question   left   for consideration was whether the restriction imposed by the tax was  reasonable  and  permissible  having  regard  to   Art. 19(1)(g)  read  with  cl. (6) and Art.  301.   According  to counsel  the  rate of tax fixed at Rs. 67.50  per  seat  per quarter  was  an unreasonable burden and not  a  restriction which could be said to be reasonable either in terms of Art. 19 or Part XIII of the Constitution.  It was urged that s. 3 of  the  Act empowering the levy of  such,  an  unreasonable impost would be ultra vires the aforementioned provisions of the Constitution.  Attempt was made to show that the  impost was  purely for the purpose of making revenue and was not  a compensatory measure.  Reliance was placed on the fact  that before  the raising of the impost to Rs. 67.50 per  _quarter the  rate  of  tax was Rs. 50 per  seat  per  quarter.   Our attention was drawn to annexure ’A’ attached to the  counter affidavit  of  Writ Petition No. 361 of 1963  out  of  which appeal No. 932 has arisen, giving a chart of quarterly taxes payable  per seat per quarter on the basis of  mileage  done prior to 1-4-1963 and subsequent to the said date.  But this chart  hardly helps the appellants cause.  The  chart  shows the motor vehicle tax and the surcharge per seat per  year per  mile on the total daily mileages from 50 miles  to  130 miles  and  the  tax  under  Andhra  Pradesh  Motor  Vehicle Taxation  Act, 1963.  It is clear that the rise in the  rate of  impost excepting in the case of buses with  a  permitted daily  mileage of 50 was not considerable and in the  higher mileage  groups the increase was slight.  According  to  the counter  affidavit  of the State, there were  few,  if  any, buses covering less than 50 miles per day.  In that view  of the  matter  there is no case of distinction so far  as  the first  group  of appeals is concerned from the  decision  of this  Court  in  Nazeeria  Motor  Company’s  case.   Besides nothing  was shown to induce us to disregard the figures  in the  budget estimates referred to by the High Court  in  its judgment  and  order dated September 6, 1963,  namely,  that whereas the whole revenue from this source was not likely to exceed Rs. 6 crores, the expenditure proposed to be incurred on road making, road repairing etc. was expected to  overtop Rs. 8,54,00,000. Mr:Gupte  however tried to draw a picture  different  from the above in the second set of appeals.  I referred us to  a report  of  an Enquiry Committee styled the  Road  Transport Taxation 860 Enquiry  Committee  constituted by the Government  of  India published in November 1967 purporting to show a huge surplus of  revenue over expenditure on roads etc. in ’the State  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

Andhra  Pradesh  during  the years  1964-67.   The  relevant portion of the report is given below :               "Statement showing the expenditure on Roads by               Andhra  Pradesh State during the  years  1964-               67."               "State   Revenue  from  Road   Transport   and               Expenditure  on Roads by Andhra Pradesh  State               during the years 1964-67.                    Expenditure         *Figures    in lakhs                                          of Rupees Year   Revenue   Original  Mainte-   Total  Surplus                    works   nance 1964-65 744.35   200.51   439.50  694.01   50.34 page 206 1965-66 1059.60  225.98   490 .25   716.23    343.37 page208 1966-67   1170.00  186.98   398 .14  585.12   548.88page 208 NOTE :           Figures  of  expenditure  relate  to  those which are spent directly by the State Government and do  not include  grants given to local bodies for road  construction and maintenance. Estimated  figures  do not include amounts  given  to  local bodies." Apparently  the  figures in the end column purport  to  show considerable surplus in the revenue from road transport over expenditure  on roads by the State of Andhra Pradesh  during the years mentioned.  Our attention was however drawn to the additional  counter affidavit of the State  affirmed  before the  High Court on April 24, 1968 wherein it was  said  that the report relied on was misleading and the chart which  was taken from the annexures to the report of the Road Transport Taxation  Enquiry Committee showing surplus was contrary  to the prevalent state of affairs.  It was categorically stated that.               "the  figures  given in the annexures  to  the               Report  are  incorrect and the  Government  of               Andhra  Pradesh  was not responsible  for  the               misstatements relating to the State of  Andhra               Pradesh  found  in the said annexures  to  the               said  Report  of  the  said  Taxation  Enquiry               Committee." It  was  also  asserted  in  the  said  affidavit  that  the questionnaire sent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh which was dated 3-12-1965 did not ask and could not have asked for ’information  regarding the year 1966-67.  It was also  said that  in the reply dated 12-1-1966 by the, State  Government the  estimated figure for the construction of roads was  Rs. 2,49,45,200/-  and the cost of maintenance was Rs. 6  crores and  the  total  expenditure was thus of the  order  of  Rs’ 8,50,00,000/-.  It wag. reiterated that the Taxation Enquiry Committee did not ask for the figures for 1966-67. 861 The  High Court went into this question in some  detail  and found that as per the budget estimates of 1967-68 the  yield under the said head ’taxes on motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act’, receipts under the Provincial Motor  Vehicles Taxation  Act and other receipts was estimated to add up  to Rs.  9,55,53,396/while the details of the expenditure  under the  several  heads was of the order of  Rs.  9,81,65,411/-. With  regard  to  the  budgetary  figures  for  1968-69  the aggregate  of  the  items including  works  on  repairs  and maintenance expenditure on States Highways, road development fund  works,  capital  outlay on roads  works  came  to  Rs. 8,75,87,900/-  and  taking into account the figures  on  the receipt  side in the budget estimates, the court was of  the view  that  the  total  receipts would  fall  short  of  the anticipated  expenditure  by about Rs. 50 lakhs.   The  High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Court also scrutinised the statistical data available in the report  of  the  Road Transport Enquiry  Committee  and  the explanation put forward by the State and observed :               "the  figures given in the report of the  Road               Transport  Taxation Enquiry Committee  do  not               give  a completely accurate picture  which  is               relevant to the present discussion." The  High Court concluded that the petitioners had not  been able  to  give  any statistical data  or  adduce  any  sound reasons  to persuade it to reject the data furnished by  the budgetary estimates and the analysis thereof given on behalf of  the  State  and  accordingly  held  that  the   proposed enhancement  of tax was not designed to augment the  general revenues of the State but was intended to meet the expending requirements of maintenance of old roads and development  of the  road system as a whole.  On these facts the High  Court concluded that there was no warrant for the charge that  the increased levy ceased to be a compensatory measure. In  the  second  group of petitions,  the  High  Court  also negatived the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the increase in taxation would virtually throw them out of  the transport business.  It was argued before  the  High Court that the increase in the tax being of the order of 50% over the pre-existing levy there was bound to be an enormous addition  to  the  total  revenues of  the  State  and  this addition  could  not  be  said to be  for-  the  purpose  of providing   additional  amenities  to  motor  operators   in particular but was one for adding to the general revenues of the State. As  against  this it was submitted on behalf  of  the  State before  the  High  Court that to meet the  increase  in  the operational  cost of the operators Government had  permitted an  increase  in  fares to be charged by  the  operators  by another order bearing the same date as that of the  impugned order.’ Reliance was also placed on the 862 fact  that on previous occasions the operators bad  no  been slow  in  utilising  similar permission to  raise  the  fare structure.   It  was  further submitted on  behalf  of  the. State  before,  the  High Court  that  "the  Motor  Vehicles Taxation  had  undergone changes to make it confirm  to  and subserve the development of improved means of communication, by  the development of roads and control of transport  etc." The  Court also noted the submission on behalf of the  State that  the general condition of roads in the State  was  poor and  it the St-ate were to provide facilities for trade  and commerce equal to or comparable with the facilities for easy communication available in other States, a large outlay  for construction  of  new roads as also the improvement  of  the existing  road system was inevitable.  The High  Court  thus found   justification  for  the  additional  levy   in   the conditions obtaining in the State. It  was  submitted before us, as was done  before  the  High Court,  that taxation by reference to mileage  specially  in regard  to  bus operators who had to ply their  vehicles  in other  States where the rate of taxation was much lower  was an   anachronism  and  an  unreasonable  restriction.    Our attention  was drawn to Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition  No. 1792  of  1968 where the total mileage  covered  by  various bills  operators including the break-up thereof showing  the mileage in Andhra area, in Madras and Mysore were given  and it was said :               "While  the buses used by the petitioners  are               taxed  on  the  basis  of  the  total  mileage               covered by them, the actual user in the  State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

             of  Andhra Pradesh, is much less and  in  some               cases it constitutes so low a fraction as  one               third of the total mileage;" It was therefore contended that the levy. in respect of  the entire mileage was incompatible with the compensatory nature of  the  tax.  The High Court accepted  the  explanation  on behalf-of the State that "there were reciprocal arrangements between  the States and consequently the provisions made  by the  other  States in regard to the free movement  on  their roads,  constituted a compensator measure for the  tax  even though it is wholly levied by the State of Andhra  Pradesh". We see no reason to take a view different from the above. The facts and figures disclosed do not justify us in  coming to  the  conclusion  that the levy was  a  general  one  for augmenting the revenues of the State.  On the other hand the figures disclosed show that the total receipts from the  tax even  now fall short of the expenditure on roads and  allied purposes.  We axe also not satisfied on the material  before us  that  the impost has resulted in bus  operators  running their business at a loss. 863 The only question. left. is whether there was  justification for  levy (I an impost at the rate of Rs. 30/-  per  quarter per  seat on spare buses.  While it is true that  the  spare buses are not allowed to be run regularly we see no  reason- to  hold  that because of this the levy is  unjustified,  or ceases to be a compensatory tax.  As was pointed out by  the High  Court, under S. 3 of the Act the State Government  was empowered  by  notification to direct that a  tax  shall  be levied  on  every motor vehicle used or kept for  use  in  a public  place in the State and a vehicle kept for use as  a standby  was  therefore  subject to levy  under  the  taxing provisions.  It was absolutely imperative for the owner of a fleet  of  buses  to  maintain some  spare  vehicles  to  be available  for  substitution in the case  of  a  break-down. Every  owner having five buses is required to  maintain  one spare  bus and operators having more than ten buses  are  to keep  two  such buses available.  Although  they  cannot  be allowed  to  run regularly it is essential  for  the  proper regulation  of the transport business that some spare  buses should  be available to avoid inconvenience or  hardship  to passengers.   Accordingly  the levy of a tax on  such  buses which  can  at any time be put on the road is  justified  in like   manner  as  in  the  case  of  regular  buses  as   a compensatory levy. In  the result, the appeals and the writ petitions fail  and are dismissed with costs.  One set of hearing fee. V. P. S.         Appeals and petitions dismissed. 864