V.Krishnamurthy vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Tr.1) Department

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Jayachandran, N. Mala, JJ.
V.Krishnamurthy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Tr.1) Department - Respondent
WA No. 192 of 2026 AND CMP Nos. 1764 to 1767 OF 2026
Decided On : 24-07-2026

Important Points

Tax legislation is enforceable if it contains sufficient operational criteria, and mandamus cannot be used to prevent statutory enforcement in the absence of a challenge to the law's validity. Credit-based offsets for previously paid taxes effectively resolve claims regarding double taxation.

Subject

Taxation Law - Motor Vehicles Taxation

Act Referred

TAMIL NADU MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION ACT : S.15, S.2(3)(a), S.3, S.3(2), S.4(1), S.4(1)(a), S.8

Headnote

(A) Taxation Law - Provisions for periodic vs. lifetime tax - Legislative amendment - Validity of tax enforcement in absence of specific enabling rules - Whether existing regulatory framework suffices for new tax administration - Need for statutory guidance within the enactment. (Paras 9, 25)

(B) Writ Mandamus - Scope of judicial intervention - Bar on restraining statutory authorities from enforcing a valid, subsisting law - Necessity of challenging the vires of an enactment before seeking relief - Prohibition on interfering with administrative duties based on non-existence of rules. (Paras 16, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an operator of passenger transport vehicles, challenged a recent legislative amendment that introduced a one-time lifetime tax on older vehicles. The petitioner contended that the lack of specific rules for assessment meant the tax was unenforceable and that the new levy created double taxation, as the vehicles had historically paid periodic taxes.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the legislative amendment was self-contained and sufficiently detailed to guide assessment and collection. It held that the existing regulatory infrastructure for vehicle taxation sufficiently covered the new mandate, and confirmed that the department's acknowledgment of credit for previously paid periodic taxes ensured the levy did not constitute double taxation.

Issues: Whether the enforcement of a tax amendment is contingent upon the publication of new operational rules and whether the imposition of a lifetime tax on older vehicles equates to double taxation.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid legislative enactment cannot be stayed via mandate unless its constitutional validity is challenged. Where a primary act provides sufficient determinative criteria, the requirement for subordinate legislation to dictate operational mechanics is not absolute. Furthermore, an integrated tax system that accounts for prior payments removes the grounds for claims of double taxation.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior counsel for Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for G.R.Associates Niranjan Rajagopalan Indrajith S Ragesh Bhagavath L Avanticka B
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Surendar, GA

JUDGMENT :

N.MALA, J.

(1) Crest fallen by the order dated 01.08.2025, passed in WP.No.36444/2023, dismissing the appellant’s writ petition, the above intra-Court appeal is preferred.

Facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition:-

(2) The appellant/writ petitioner is operating Tourists Maxi Cab Services in the name and style of ‘’M/s.Aviation Express’’. The appellant provides tourist maxi cab services to air travellers at Chennai, both international and domestic airports and has been in the trade for over 35 years. The appellant claims to have paid all applicable taxes and charges relating to his vehicles as mandated by law. The appellant states that he is paying the taxes on quarterly basis for his vehicles as per Section 4[1] of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, [hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Taxation Act’’]. According to the appellant, the manner and period of payment is prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1974. While so, the respondents/Government introduced the Amendment Act 30/2023, amending Section 4[1-A] of the Taxation Act and the corresponding Schedules by substituting certain provisions. The appellant is aggrieved by the introduction of lifetime tax under the Amendment Act 30/2023, for old Tourist Maxi Cab Vehicles, at differential rates as per the year of registration. The appellant further states that when he attempted to pay the quarterly tax through the online portal, the same was not accepted citing the introduction of the new Amendment. The appellant states that, while so, vide letter dated 16.11.2023, the 1^st respondent directed the 2^nd respondent, to extend the time for payment of the tax for the current quarter, difference of tax, and also to extend the time for exercising the option to pay in installments or lump sum, the lifetime tax in respect of the old Tourist Maxi Cab Vehicles, by getting an Undertaking affidavit from the owners of the vehicles. The 2^nd respondent, accordingly extended the time till 31.12.2023. The appellant states that it was expecting the Government to notify the Rules, Circulars, instructions etc., pursuant to the Amendment Act, but instead of notifying them, the officials insisted on immediate payment of lifetime tax. The appellant, also submitted a representation on 30.11.2023, to the 3^rd respondent seeking copies of the Rules and Orders, if any ; but the officials expressed ignorance of any Orders, Rules etc., and reiterated that the quarterly tax would not be accepted. The appellant contends that in the absence of Rules prescribing the mode and manner of payment of lifetime tax, consequences such as penalty, permit ineffectiveness etc., would not arise, and that in any event, it is settled law that tax should not be introduced or enforced during an on-going assessment period unless expressly authorised. The other contentions of the appellant raised in its affidavit are not traversed in detail and suffice it to state that the appellant laments that in the absence of the Rules prescribing the mode and the manner for payment or any reasonable mechanism for adjustment of quarterly tax already paid, the respondents should be restrained from insisting upon payment of lifetime tax for the appellant’s Tourist Maxi Cab Vehicles pursuant to the Amendment Act 30/2023, till the Rules are framed and published. Under the circumstances, the appellant filed the writ petition seeking for a mandamus forbearing the respondents from insisting upon payment of lifetime tax for the petitioner’s Maxi Cab Vehicles pursuant to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation [Amendment Act], 1974 [Act 30 of 2023], pending framing / amendment of Rules in regard to the same and publication of details of implementation and modalities.

(3) The respondents refuted the allegations of the appellant/writ petitioner by filing a counter affidavit.

Findings of the learned Single Judge:-

(4) The learned Judge of this Court, on appreciation of the rival contentions and on the basis of the ma