AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Phillips, J.—The only question for decision here is whether the word ""licensed"" in Section 104(3)(c) of the Madras Local Boards Act of
1920 means licensed under Clause (2) of the same section or in the wider sense of licensed for any purpose whatever. The appellant contends that
if a license is granted u/s 166 to use a motor vehicle to ply for hire or to take passengers or goods at certain rates then such a vehicle is one
licensed within the meaning of Section 104 and is not liable to pay toll. To put this general construction upon the word ""licensed"" when it follows
immediately after the clause dealing with certain particular licenses would be straining the words of the section and consequently the interpretation
put upon it by the District Judge seems to be a correct one. The various arguments put forward here have all been dealt with in his judgment and
there is really nothing to be added thereto. The question of construing ""Taxing Acts"" in the strictest sense in favour of the subject can hardly apply
here for there cannot really be reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the word ""licensed"" in Clause (c). Judicial opinion as to whether statutes
imposing tolls need not be construed so strictly appears to be somewhat divided in England, but it is unnecessary to consider that point here for
there is really no doubt in this matter.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.