Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Ors
not give a completely accurate picture which is relevant to the present discussion. 17. 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 estimate 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 expanding 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. 18. 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 preexisting 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. 19. 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 fact that on previous occasions the operators had not 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 conform 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 if the State 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. 20. 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 anchronism 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 bus 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 of Andhra Pradesh is much less and in some cases it constitutes so low a fraction as one third of the total mileage; 21. 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 compensatory 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. 22. 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 are also not satisfied on the material before us that the impost has resulted in bus operators running their business at a loss. 23. The only question left is whether there was justification for levy of 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 Section 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. 24.
0[ds]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 are also not satisfied on the material before us that the impost has resulted in bus operators running their business at a lossWhile 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 Section 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.
### Instruction:
Forecast the likely verdict of the case (granting (1) or denying (0) the appeal) and then rationalize your prediction by pinpointing and explaining pivotal sentences in the case document.

### Input:
not give a completely accurate picture which is relevant to the present discussion. 17. 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 estimate 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 expanding 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. 18. 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 preexisting 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. 19. 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 fact that on previous occasions the operators had not 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 conform 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 if the State 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. 20. 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 anchronism 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 bus 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 of Andhra Pradesh is much less and in some cases it constitutes so low a fraction as one third of the total mileage; 21. 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 compensatory 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. 22. 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 are also not satisfied on the material before us that the impost has resulted in bus operators running their business at a loss. 23. The only question left is whether there was justification for levy of 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 Section 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. 24.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
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 are also not satisfied on the material before us that the impost has resulted in bus operators running their business at a lossWhile 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 Section 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.
