IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.04.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

W.P. No.9869 of 2021

V.Kannan

…Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Motor Vehicles Inspector,

Zuzuvadi Check Post,

Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Motor Vehicles Inspector,

Bagalur Check Post,

Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitu-

tion of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the

respondents to accept Motor vehicles tax for Tamilnadu,

voluntarily tendered by the petitioner in advance for 7 days or

30 days or 90 days use in Tamilnadu in accordance with Ninth

schedule of the Tamilnadu Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, in

respect of petitioner's vehicles KA-01AM6999, KA-01AM3777 and

KA-53AA3777.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivasalu

For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh,

Government Advocate

O R D E R

Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh, learned Government Advocate accepts

notice for the respondents and is armed with instructions to

proceed with the matter finally even at the stage of admission.

Hence, by consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up

for final disposal even at this stage.

2. I have had occasion to consider a similar issue in

W.P.No.190 of 2020 and has passed the following order on

09.02.2021:

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

'The petitioner, who is a tour operator holding

All India Permits and contract Carriage Omni Bus

Permits, seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the

respondents to accept Motor Vehicles Tax for Tamil

Nadu, which is voluntarily tendered by the

petitioner in advance for 7/30/90 days use in Tamil

Nadu in accordance with the 9^th Schedule of the

Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 (in

short 'Act') in respect of his vehicle.

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 contract carriage basis wherein the

levy of tax was 'Per entry of the vehicle'. The

validity of this amendment was challenged on the

ground that such a levy would be confiscatory. This

argument was accepted by the Bench, which held the

use of the phrase 'per entry' unconstitutional.

3. The sum and substance of the decision is

that in case where licences/permits are obtained

for the period of 7/30/90 days, multiple entries of

the vehicles would be permitted during the

licence/permit period.

4. The Division Bench has, inter alia, in

paragraph 14 relied on an earlier decision of this

Court in V.Swaminathan and others V. Motor Vehicle

Inspector (W.P.No.10879 of 1992 and batch dated

04.12.1992) to the effect that once a tax is paid

for a particular period, it is not open to the

authorities to demand tax for any part of that

period additionally on the sole ground that the

vehicle has gone out of State and re-entered during

that very period.

5. Paragraph 9 of the decision in

V.Swaminathan's case holds unambiguously that once

tax has been remitted for a particular period,

multiple entry of that vehicle is permitted into

and out of the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, after

issuing a temporary licence for a contract carriage

for a period of 7/30/90 days, it is not open to the

State to levy tax on the basis that multiple

entries are impermissible treating each entry as

requiring a separate payment of tax.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The challenge to the aforesaid decision

appears to have been rejected by the Supreme Court

in SLP.Nos.16933 and 16935 of 2016 by order dated

07.10.2016.

7. It is brought to my notice that the

aforesaid decision of the Div