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
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
State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K.Kandaswami [1975 (4) SCC 745]
Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1980 (3) SCC 619]
L.Royal Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 2004 AP 347]
Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1962 SC 1406]
Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam [AIR 1961 SC 232]
State of Bihar v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce [1996 (9) SCC 136]
Jindal Strips Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2003 (8) SCC 60]
Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2006 (7) SCC 241]
Kunnaathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala [AIR 1961 SC 552]
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.