Madras High Court

Dr.G.Winston vs The Secretary To The Government Of ... on 4 January, 2023

                                                                               W.A(MD)No.195 of 2021

                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 04.01.2023

                                                      CORAM

                                    THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
                                                     AND
                                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                             W.A.(MD)No.195 of 2021
                                                      and
                                             C.M.P(MD)No.600 of 2021

                     Dr.G.Winston                                .. Appellant/Petitioner


                                                         Vs.


                     1.The Secretary to the Government of India,
                       Ministry of Transport & Highways,
                       No.1, Parliament Street, Transport Bhavan,
                       New Delhi-110 001.

                     2.The Secretary to the Government of India,
                       Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises,
                       (Department of Heavy Industry)
                       Room No.428, Udyog Bhavan,
                       New Delhi-110 011.

                     3.The Transport Commissioner,
                       Transport Department,
                       Chepauk,
                       Chennai-5.



                     Page 1 of 11



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                      W.A(MD)No.195 of 2021

                     4.The Regional Transport Officer,
                       RTO Office, Nagercoil,
                       Situated at,
                       Pandarapuram, Thovalai Taluk,
                       Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

                     5.Derik Hyundai Motors,
                       Rep by its General Manager,
                       Nagercoil.

                     6.The Principal Secretary to Government,
                       Transport Department,
                       Fort Saint George, Chennai.                      .. Respondents/ Respondents

                      (R6 Suo Motu impleaded vide order
                     dated 24.09.2020)

                                  Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying this Court,
                     to set aside the order dated 24.09.2020 passed in W.P(MD)No.5450 of 2020
                     on the file of this Court by allowing this Writ Appeal.


                                              For Appellants      :Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan,
                                                                  for Mr.T.Arul
                                              For R3,R4&R6        :Mr.D.Sasikumar,
                                                                  Additional Government Pleader
                                              For R1&R2           :Mr.S.Jeyasingh
                                                                   Senior Panel Counsel
                                              For R5              :Mr.B.Michael Sebastian,
                                                                   for Mr.S.Xavier Rajini




                     Page 2 of 11



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   W.A(MD)No.195 of 2021

                                                         JUDGMENT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.

The appellant, who lost his writ petition before the learned Single

Judge, is before the Division Bench seeking tax exemption for his automatic

transmission vehicle, since he is a physically disabled person, entitled for

tax exemption.

2.In the year 1976, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification

in exercise of its power under Section 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles

Taxation Act, 1974, exempting payment of tax leviable under the said Act,

to all motor vehicles specially designed or adapted for the use of physically

handicapped persons, provided that adapted vehicles are used by the

physically handicapped persons only. The said notification in G.O.Ms.No.

3352, dated 29.12.1976, came into effect from 1st January, 1977. Availing

the said concession in the year 2006, the appellant earlier had purchased a

Hyundai Santro car with automatic transmission with required alteration.

Due to the advancement of technology in motor vehicle as well as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.195 of 2021

considering the age of the vehicle he possessed, the appellant had thought

fit to dispose the old vehicle and purchased a new Hyundai-i10 car in

exchange the automatic transmission (hand control). When he sought for tax

exemption, as per G.O.Ms.No.3352, Home (Transport-T) Department, dated

29.12.1976, the same was declined by the Road Transport Authorities.

Hence, he was compelled to file a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.5450 of 2020

with the following prayer,

“to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 vide his proceedings in Lr.R.No.1223/C1/2020 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the fourth respondent to register the petitioner's new Hyundai-i10 car with auto clutch, a modern version of automatic Transmission without insisting the petitioner to produce retro fitment certificate within a time frame as fixed by this Court and grant life tax exemption as to the CARs for the disabled persons.”

3.The learned Single Judge, after considering the expression like

“Specially designed”, “adapted” (specially designed motor vehicle) used in

G.O.Ms.No.3352, has dismissed the writ petition making the following

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.195 of 2021

observations:

“16.Now the only question that has to be answered by me is whether the vehicle purchased by the petitioner can be categorized as motor vehicle specially designed or adapted for the use of physically handicapped persons. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an earnest attempt to persuade me to accede to his view point, I regret my inability. Hyundai i10 can be used by any person. It cannot be called as vehicle specially designed or adapted for the use of physically handicapped person. In other words, Hyundai i10 is a vehicle which a normal person or a differently abled person like the petitioner can drive. It has not been specially adapted or designed for the use of differently abled persons. The technological design of the vehicle is such that the physical disability of the petitioner will not come in the way of driving the vehicle. Use of the vehicle by the petitioner by itself will not make it an invalid carriage. On the other hand, the vehicle must be specially designed or adapted to address the needs of the physically challenged person. Such is not the case here. It is a car designed for all. Incidentally, it suits the petitioner also. The petitioner is an incidental beneficiary. He is not a targeted beneficiary. Therefore, the other requirement set out in G.O.Ms.No.3352, Home (Transport-T) Department, dated 29.12.1976 is not satisfied.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.195 of 2021

17.Of-course, issue regarding the mode of interpretation did arise in this case. A beneficial provision must be expansively and liberally construed so that the intended beneficiaries reap the fruits. But it is equally well settled that a provision exempting payment of tax must be strictly interpreted and if there is any ambiguity, the benefit must go not to the assessee but to the revenue. The G.O in question is not however torn by such conflicting interpretations. It poses a factual and straight-forward question. Is the vehicle “specially designed” or “adapted” for the use of physically handicapped persons?”. “special” is something different from what is normal. “Specially” means “for a particular purpose or person” (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 9th edition). P Ramanatha Aiyar's 'Advanced Law Lexicon' defines the word 'special' as follows:-

“Special. Designed for a particular purpose. Exceptional in character, quality or degree, appointed or employed for a particular purpose or occasion, relating to a single thing.” Black's Law Dictionary also defines 'special' as 'unusual' or 'extraordinary'. Since the expression “specially” bears such a connotation, the vehicle in question cannot fall within the scope of the G.O.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.195 of 2021

4.The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned

Single Judge has failed to appreciate the spirit of G.O., granting tax

exemption as well as the improvement in the technology. To encourage the

disabled persons and to make them self-reliance, as a welfare measure G.O

has been passed granting tax exemption in 1976, when there was no

technology auto transmission alteration was to be made specially for the use

of disabled persons. Whereas, by efflux of time, technology has improved

and auto transmission using hand clutch has become order of the day, which

is very well suitable for any disabled person without making any mechanical

alteration of the vehicle. Therefore, the vehicle, which a disabled person,

can drive without making any mechanical alteration, should also be

exempted. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the

technology improvement.

5.Further, the learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the

clarification letter issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road

Transport and Highways, dated 13.11.2020, which makes clear that the

vehicles with automatic gear have been considered suitable for driving by

some of the disabled person without altering the vehicle. In order to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.195 of 2021

facilitate those disabled persons to get the various

exemptions/facilitation/relief provided by the State Government in respect

of the invalid carriage vehicles may also be extended for these vehicles

owned by the disabled persons. This clarification letter was issued, after the

delivery of the impugned order, which is dated 24.09.2020. The clarification

letter, dated 13.11.2020, makes clear the current legal position it allows the

disabled persons to seek exemption, even for the automatic gear vehicle

without making any mechanical alteration, provided the said disabled

person is fit to drive the said automatic transmission vehicle. It all depends

upon the vehicle as well as the person, who drives the vehicle and

subjective satisfaction of the authority, who grants exemption. For

convenience sake, the clarification letter of the Government of India is also

extracted below:

“Sir/Madam, Kindly find attached notification G.S.R.661(E) dated 22.10.2020 which contains amendments in Form 20 of the Central Motor Vehicles rules (CMVR), 1989. With this notification Divyangjan have been categorized as ownership type. Form 20 of the CMVR 1989 provides for application for registration of a motor vehicle with the ownership of a vehicle in the name of the categories as mentioned at Sr.No.4A of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.195 of 2021

form.

2.The attention is also invited to the advisory issued by the Ministry No.RT.II021140/2014-MVL dated 14th June 2016 regarding Procedure for guidelines for grant of driving licenses and registration certificates to differently abled persons. The vehicles with Automatic gear have been considered suitable for driving by some of the Divyangjan without altering the vehicle.

3.In order to facilitate Divyangjan, the various exemptions/facilitation/relief provided by the State Governments in respect of invalid Carriage vehicles may also be extended for theses vehicles owned by Divyangjan.

4.This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.”

6.In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the

view that the appellant herein is entitled for tax exemption and the fourth

respondent is hereby directed to consider the request of the appellant herein,

in the light of the clarification letter issued by the Union of India, directing

all the State Governments to extend the tax exemption for automatic

transmission vehicle also without alteration if it is purchased and drove by

the disabled persons.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.195 of 2021

7The appellant herein is hereby directed to make a representation

within seven(7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On

such receipt of the said representation, the fourth respondent is directed to