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

1982 Supreme(All) 466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. N. Seth and R. R. Rastogi, JJ.
SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LTD., ALLAHABAD - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL BOARD, UJHANI - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. 18 Of 1978
Decided On : 05/25/1982

Advocates Appeared:
N.Lal, S.S.BHATNAGAR

The imposition of toll tax on vehicles in transit passing through the limits of the Municipal Board is illegal as there is no consideration for the imposition of the tax. The general amenities provided by the Municipal Board, such as lighting and cleaning of roads, cannot be considered to be sufficient consideration for the imposition of the toll tax.

Headnote:

MUNICIPALITIES - TOLL TAX - IMPOSITION ON VEHICLES IN TRANSIT - LEGALITY - CONSIDERATION FOR IMPOSITION - GENERAL AMENITIES PROVIDED BY MUNICIPAL BOARD - SUFFICIENCY - PRINCIPLE OF QUID PRO QUO - APPLICABILITY - U. P. MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1916, SECTION 128(1)(VII).

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a sugar factory, challenged the legality of toll tax imposed by the respondent Municipal Boards on trucks carrying sugarcane from purchasing centers to the factory, which passed through the limits of the Municipal Boards.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the imposition of toll tax on vehicles in transit passing through the limits of the Municipal Board was illegal as there was no consideration for the imposition of the tax. The general amenities provided by the Municipal Board, such as lighting and cleaning of roads, could not be considered to be sufficient consideration for the imposition of the toll tax.

Issues: 1. Whether the Municipal Boards had the authority to impose toll tax on vehicles in transit passing through the limits of the Municipal Board? 2. Whether the toll tax being compensatory in nature, the principle of quid pro quo was attracted and since the Municipal Boards did not render any service, the imposition of toll tax was illegal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Municipal Boards had the authority to impose toll tax on vehicles and other conveyances entering the municipality under Section 128(1)(vii) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. 2. The Court held that the toll tax was compensatory in nature and the principle of quid pro quo was attracted. Since the Municipal Boards did not render any service to the petitioner, the imposition of toll tax was illegal.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and directed the respondent Municipal Boards to refrain from realizing any toll tax on trucks or any other vehicles carrying sugarcane from the purchasing centers to the petitioner's factory while passing through the limits of the Municipal Boards.

K. N. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner M/s. Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited manufactures crystal sugar at its sugar factory situate at Neoli, district Etah. It has challenged the legality of the imposition and realisation of toll tax (Vahan Kar) by the Municipal Boards of Ujhanai and Budaun on trucks and other vehicles carrying sugarcane transported from sugarcane purchasing centres to the petitioners factory at Neoli, district Etah. The prayer made in these writ petitions is for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Municipal Boards to refrain and forbear from realising any toll tax on trucks or any other vehicles carrying sugarcane from sugarcane purchasing centres to the petitioners factory while passing through the limits of the Municipal Boards.

( 2 ) THE case set up by the petitioner is that all sugarcane purchasing centres as well as the sugar factory are situate outside the limits of the Municipal Boards. The vehicles carrying sugarcane from the purchasing centres to the petitioners factory only pass through the limits of the municipal Boards. The Municipal Board, Ujhanai imposed the impugned tax by a notification dated 6-3-1972, which was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 18-3-1972. Amendments in the rules and the rate of tax were made from time to time. The last amendment was made by notification dated 29-11-1976 which came into effect from 1-12-1976 and was in force. The municipal Board, Budaun imposed the impugned tax by a notification dated 31 5-1975.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the trucks carrying sugarcane for the petitioner pass through moradabad--Farru--khabad Road, Budaun-Datagani Road and Bareilly-Mathura Road which are public highways maintained by the Public Works Department of the Government. The Municipal boards of Ujhanai and Budaun do not render any service to the petitioner Or to the vehicles transporting sugarcane from the sugarcane purchasing centres situate outside the limits of the municipal Boards to the petitioners factory which is also situate outside the Municipal limits.

( 4 ) AT the hearing of the petition the legality of the imposition has been challenged on the ground (1) that the Municipal Boards have no authority to impose toll tax on vehicles in transit passing through the limits of the Municipal Board and (2) that the toll tax being compensatory in nature the principle of quid pro quo is attracted and since the Municipal Boards do not render any service the imposition of toll tax is illegal.

( 5 ) THE stand taken by the respondents Municipal Boards was that toll tax on laden vehicles passing through the limits of the Municipal Boards has been validly imposed after following the procedure prescribed under the Act. It has also been asserted that although moradabad-Farruakhabad Road, Budaun-Datagani Road and Bareilly-Mathura Road are public highways constructed by the State and repair work is done by the Public Works Department but the cleaning of the road, the lighting on the road and looking after of the road is done by the municipal Board and in that manner the Board renders services to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Board, Ujhanai the circumstances in which impugned toll tax was imposed have also been set out but for the disposal of the case it is not necessary to refer to them in detail. The Municipal Board Ujhani took an alternative stand that what was being charged from the petitioner was transit-fee or tax and not toll tax simpliciter but at the time of hearing this stand was not pressed.

( 6 ) SECTION 128 (1) of the U. P. Municipalities Act empowers the Municipal Board to impose certain taxes in the whole or any part of the Municipality subject to any general rules or special orders of the State Government, in this behalf. Under Clause (vii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 128 the Board is authorised to impose a toll on vehicles and other conveyances, animals, and laden coolies entering the m






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top