SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Mad) 775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN And N.KIRUBAKARAN, JJ.
Pondicherry Contract Carriage Owners - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.22011 of 2012, 28941 & 33581 of 2014
Decided On : 04-4-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. V.T. Gopalan, S.C. Mrs. Radha Gopalan Mr.R. Muthukumarasamy, S.C. Mr. S.Govindaraman
For the Respondents: Mr. A.L. Somayaji Assisted by Mr. N. Srinivasan, AGP

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 - By amendment made to Ninth Schedule to Act, tax was imposed on buses hired on contract carriages based on fixed amount per seat or berth per entry. The question arose that the levy was penal in nature. It was decided by the court that in some places state had mentioned that the tax was levied to prevent misuse of law and in other places that the cost of construction of road was taken into consideration. Hence, it could not distinguish the people who complied with law and those who did not. Hence, the levy was violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India as it appears to be penal in nature and not compensatory.

ORDER :

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

By an amendment made under Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 2012, to the Ninth Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the State of Tamil Nadu imposed a tax of a fixed amount per seat or berth per entry, upon omni buses hired on contract carriage for a period not exceeding 7 days, 30 days and 90 days. Challenging the validity of the said amendment, the petitioners, who are omni bus operators, have come up with the above writ petitions.

2. We have heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan and Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and Mr. AL. Somayaji, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. N. Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu.

3. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Ninth Schedule to the Act, respectively cover tourist motor cab, tourist maxi cab and omni bus, including sleeper coaches in respect of which permit is granted under Sub-sections (8) or (9) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Ninth Schedule, as it stands amended under Tamil Nadu Act No.13 of 2012, read as follows:

"Contract carriages in respect of which temporary licence is issued –

(a) Tourist motor cab -

(i) If the temporary licence is for a period not exceeding 7 days - Rs.60.00 per entry

(ii) If the temporary licence is for a period exceeding 7 days but not exceeding 30 days - Rs.180.00 per entry

(iii) If the temporary licence is for a period exceeding 30 days but not exceeding 90 days - Rs.450.00 per entry

(b) Tourist maxi cab -

(i) If the temporary licence is for a period not exceeding 7 days - Rs.75.00 per seat per entry

(ii) If the temporary licence is for a period exceeding 7 days but not exceeding 30 days - Rs.160.00 per seat per entry

(iii) If the temporary licence is for a period exceeding 30 days but not exceeding 90 days - Rs.450.00 per seat per entry

(c) Omni bus including sleeper coach in respect of which permit is granted under sub-section (8) or (9) of section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-

(i) If the temporary licence is for a period not exceeding 7 days - Rs.600.00 per seat or berth per entry

(ii) If the temporary licence is for a period exceeding 7 days but not exceeding 30 days -Rs.1500.00 per seat or berth per entry

(iii) If the temporary licence is for a period exceeding 30 days but not exceeding 90 days -Rs.3500.00 per seat or berth per entry."

4. The objection of the petitioners is not entirely to the levy of an amount per seat or berth, but, it is to the levy "per entry".

5. The main grounds of challenge to the levy, can be summarised as follows:

(i) that the levy is not compensatory, but confiscatory in nature;

(ii) that the purported object of the levy is to address the issue of misuse of contract carriage permits by operators and hence, the same is bad in law; and

(iii) that the levy is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. The State of Tamil Nadu originally filed separate counter affidavits in two writ petitions. Subsequently, the State filed an additional counter affidavit detailing the purpose for which the amendment was brought forth.

7. In the counter and additional counter affidavits, the State seeks to justify the levy, primarily on three grounds, namely:

(a) that the temporary licences issued to contract carriages under Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 are more often misused by the operators, to make more than one trip within the duration for which such licences are granted and hence, there arose a necessity to plug the loophole;

(b) that the Government decided to impose the levy for the purpose of augmenting its resources and to utilise the revenue derived therefrom, for the welfare of the people, including the laying and maintenance of roads and the floating of several public welfare schemes; and

(c) that an amendment made for the purpose of plugging the hole in the law and for regulating the same, cannot be said to be illegal.

8. We have























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top