JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.:-The petitioners have filed the present petition to challenge the action of respondent No. 2, the Cantonment board, Aurangabad, which has imposed a tax styled as "Vehicle Entry Tax". The petitioners aver that they are residents of Aurangabad and are engaged in the business of transport. Respondent No. 3 is the Contract, to whom the contract to collect vehicle Entry Tax has been allotted. Respondent No. 4 is Union of India who, according to the petitioners, has granted sanction to respondent No. 2 to impose the Vehicle Entry Tax. The petitioners are engaged in transport business and use their vehicle for transportation of the employees of various industries situated at Waluj Industrial area from Aurangabad to Waluj and from Waluj to Aurangabad. The vehicles of the petitioners when used for that purpose, are required to use the Aurangabad-Pune Road, which passes through Aurangabad Cantonment Area, Aurangabad. The respondent No. 2 Cantonment Board had issued draft notification for imposing the vehicle entry tax on entry of vehicle within the limits of Aurangabad Cantonment which was published on 24-4-2003. Objections were invited by the said notification as also suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby within a period of 60 days from the date of publication of the notification. The Board thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Cantonments Act, 1924, was pleased to impose tax, to be known as Vehicle Entry Tax on commercially loaded vehicles entering and passing through the limits of Aurangabad Cantonment, Aurangabad, to be paid by the owners of the vehicles. This applies to vehicles carrying both passengers and goods. There are some exclusions in terms of the said notification. The collection of the Vehicle Entry Tax commenced from 11-10-2003. The contention of the petitioners is that, considering section 20 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1958, the Cantonment Board has no authority to impose the impugned Vehicle Entry Tax on motor vehicles. Consequently, the action of the 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction and is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is further averred that the Cantonment Board is neither the owner nor is having any control over the Aurangabad-Pune Road as well as Aurangabad-Nashik Road, which are under the control of the State and, as such, levying Vehicle Entry Tax for plying on the road not maintained by the Cantonment Board is incompetent, invalid and interferes with the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution and, therefore, the reliefs, as prayed for.

2. Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavits. It is pointed out that the Cantonment Board, Aurangabad, was established in the year 1890 and is looking after all civic amenities, including water supply, sanitation, health care, maintenance and development of road and electrification of the streets, etc. The Board has meager source of income and is facing severe financial constraints. It was not received grant in aid from the State Government. The Central Government releases small amount which can hardly meet its day to day expenditure. It is then pointed out that under section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924, the Board is entitled to impose tax with prior permission of the Central Government. Considering these circumstances, respondent No. 2 passed Resolution No. 14, dt. 13-10-2001, to impose vehicle entry tax in the Cantonment area of Aurangabad. As required, a detailed proposal for imposition of vehicle entry tax along with the Board Resolution and draft notification was sent to the Central Government. The Central Government vetted the same and granted approval. It was only after that, the notification was published. Reliance is placed also on the bye-laws as framed for the purpose of collection of the vehicle entry. It is contended that the vehicle entry tax is imposed legally and as per the provisions of law

Click Here to Read the rest of this document