The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents must accept the payment of motor vehicle tax for the specified periods as per the Ninth Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, and cannot levy further tax based on the trip within that period.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to accept the Motor Vehicle tax for Tamil Nadu, voluntarily tendered by the Petitioner in advance for 7 days or 30 days or 90 days use in Tamil Nadu in accordance with Ninth Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, in respect of the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 51C 8517 forthwith.)

1. The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to accept the Motor Vehicle tax for Tamil Nadu, voluntarily tendered by the Petitioner in advance for 7 days or 30 days or 90 days use in Tamil Nadu in accordance with Ninth Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, in respect of the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 51 C 8517 forthwith.

2. The petitioner is having an All India Permit Tourist Vehicle bearing Registration No. KA 51 C 8517. That the said vehicle is to be plied in the State of Tamil Nadu. Under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, especially under Schedule IX, they have to pay tax either for 7 days or for 30 days or for 90 days as the case may be and depending upon the number of days, if the tax is paid, the slab for paying the tax also gets varied.

3. In this context, it was an attempt made by the petitioner to pay the tax for 30 days or more. However, the respondents insisted only to pay tax for 7 days and not for 30 days.

4. Such kind of refusal to pay the tax for 7 days or 30 days or 90 days as the case may be, if the petitioner comes forward voluntarily to make a payment for the purpose of plying the vehicle in the State of Tamil Nadu, according to the petitioner, is unlawful and unjustifiable. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for issuance of Writ of Mandamus as he relied upon the earlier order passed by this Court on similar circumstances in the matter of C.Ramu Vs. The Motor Vehicles Inspector (NT) and another in W.P.No.24128 of 2021 dated 07.12.2021.

5. Heard Mr.P.Anandhakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, who would submit that, in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, especially the order referred above by the petitioner side, the request of the petitioner would be considered in the same line. Accordingly, this writ petition can be disposed of, he contended.

6. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

7. Insofar as the issue raised in this writ petition is concerned, it is no more res integra as number of orders on similar circumstances have been passed by this Court.

8. One such order is the said case in C.Ramu Vs. The Motor Vehicles Inspector (NT) and another (cited supra), where, I have passed the following orders :

“12. I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

13. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the issue raised in this Writ Petition or the prayer sought for herein is no more res integra as number of judgments have been passed in this context.

14. The latest judgment in the case of Mr.K.Sivaprakash referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is the latest addition, where the similar prayer has been dealt with by the learned Judge, who passed the order on 16.09.2021, where the following portion of the order can be usefully referred to hereunder:

“2. This very issue has come to be discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in Pondicherry Contract Carriage Owners- Association and others V. State of Tamil Nadu and another ((2016) 4 MLJ 237). There was an amendment made to the 9 th Schedule of the Act which imposes tax on slab rates for omni buses hired on cont