In this case, the doctrine of harmonious construction has been followed by interpreting the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 and Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act,1961.
The Cantonment Board had levied entry tax on motor vehicles. Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 prohibits a local authority to impose “a tax toll or license fee in respect of a motor vehicle”.
Section 3(1) of the Taxation Act authorizes imposition of a tax on “motor vehicles used or kept for use” at the specified rates.
Section 127(1)(iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 authorizes imposition of tax on “vehicles entering the limits of the municipality”
The said common question of law was whether the Cantonment Board is entitled to levy entry tax on Motor Vehicles?
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that in view of the bar of imposition of tax by any local authority contained in Section 6(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947 , the Cantonment Board could not have imposed the entry tax on Motor Vehicles conferred under Section 127 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and consequently the Cantonment Board in exercise of its power under Section 60(1) of the Cantonment Act cannot impose the entry tax on motor vehicles , the said power be co-extensive with the power of a Municipality under Section 127 of the Municipalities Act.
The Counsel for the Cantonment Board challenged the correctness of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court inter alia on the ground that:-
The Municipalities being a later Act than the Taxation Act, the provisions of the later Act would prevail if there is any repugnancy between these two. In this view of the matter the imposition of entry tax having been provided for section 127 (iii) of the Municipalities Act, the same could be lawfully levied by the Cantonment Board under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act.
Though the Municipalities Act did not expressly repeal the provisions of theTaxation Act but the same being a later Act, the principles of implied repeal should be applied and therefore, any embargo contained in the Taxation Act for levy of entry tax because of section 6 of the Taxation Act will have no application.
The proviso to section 7 of the Taxation Act would indicate that the embargo contained in Section 6 of the said Act would apply only if the Cantonment Board agrees not to recover any tax and in the absence of any consent of the Cantonment Board the embargo contained in imposition of tax under Section 6 of the Taxation Act will not apply.
The Act having not provided for any levy on the entry of Motor Vehicles as is provided under Section 127(1)(ii) of the Municipalities Act there is in fact no repugnancy between tow provisions and, therefore, so far as the levy of entry tax on motor vehicles is concerned, it must be held that the prohibitions contained in Section 6 of the Taxation Act will not get attracted.
The counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the duty of the court being to put a construction by which both the provisions could be sustained, the expression `vehicle’ in the Municipalities Act should be interpreted to mean all vehicles other than Motor Vehicles for which a special provision has been made in the Taxation Act and so construed the Cantonment Board would not have any jurisdiction to levy entry tax on Motor Vehicles.
The Honorable Supreme Court compared both the Acts and held that on interpreting the provisions of both the acts and on harmonizing the Acts, the prohibition in Section 6 of the Taxation Act related to a tax on vehicles used or kept for use which could be levied under Section 3(1) and not the entry tax which could be imposed by a municipality under Section 127(1)(iii) of the Municipalities Act.
Conclusion
Statutes are drafted by the legislature and the possibility is there of situations of ambiguity, conflicts, anomalies, absurdities, hardships, repugnancy, redundancy etc. In such situations, the rules of interpretation of statutes come into play and the provisions are construed so as to avoid head-on clash and to give maximum effect to them and to render justice. The principle of harmonious construction plays a very important role in interpreting statutes .It helps in simplifying complicated issues and makes delivering judgments much easier. Therefore, like the many rules of interpretation of statutes, the importance of the rule of harmonious construction is also understood and felt by the judiciary.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS