Madras High Court
N.Manjunatha vs The Motor Vehicles Inspector (Nt) on 22 April, 2022
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
N.Manjunatha ... Petitioner in WP.No.10006/2022
S.Shankar ... Petitioner in WP.No.10007/2022
Srinivasa Gowda ... Petitioner in WP.No.10008/2022
Vs
1.The Motor Vehicles Inspector (NT)
Multipurpose Check Post, Zuzuwadi,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Motor Vehicles Inspector,
Bagalur Check Post,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents in all WPs
Prayer in WP.No.10006/2022 : 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 51 C 3171 forthwith.
Prayer in WP.No.10007/2022 : 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 51 A 8959 forthwith.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
Prayer in WP.No.10008/2022 : 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 51 C 7349 forthwith.
In all WPs
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sarath Kumar
For Mr.A.Ganesan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Muthusamy
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
The issue raised in these writ petitions since is common, all these
writ petitions were heard together with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for both sides and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners are having transport vehicles with All India
Tourist Permit with Registration Nos. KA 51 C 3171
(W.P.No.10006/2022), KA 51 A 8959 (W.P.No.10007/2022) and KA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
3. Though they have the All India Permit for their vehicles, if at all
these vehicles have to be plied in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of
Tamil Nadu, they have to pay the tax as per the Schedule and slab fixed
by the Tamil Nadu legislation with regard to Motor Vehicle Tax.
4. In this context, according to the desire of the vehicles owner,
they can pay tax depending upon their time limit to ply the vehicle either
for 7 days or 30 days or 90 days as the case may be.
5. However, it is the complaint of the petitioners that, when they
offer to pay for 7 days, the respondent authorities insisted to make the
payment of 30 days, like that, if they go for payment of 30 days, the
complaint is that, the respondent necessitated to pay for 90 days.
6. Therefore, in order to pay the tax only for the desired days like 7
days or 30 days or 90 days as the case may be, when they make an offer
since the same has not been accepted by the respondents, these
petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions
with the respective prayers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
7. Heard Mr.S.Sarath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr.M.Muthusamy, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents.
8. The issued raised in these writ petitions is no more res integra as
number of such writ petitions filed already have been decided by this
Court.
9. In one such case, in the matter of K.Boopal Vs. The Motor
Vehicles Inspector and another dated 04.03.2022 made in W.P.No.5030
of 2022, I had an occasion to consider the similar issue, where, I passed
the following order:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
tax on the basis that multiple entries are impermissible
treating each entry as requiring a separate payment of tax.
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 Division Bench has been taken note of by a
learned single Judge of this Court who has allowed a batch
of Writ Petitions seeking an identical prayer as before me in
W.P.No.17658 of 2016 and batch by order dated
21.12.2020. As on date, the aforesaid order of the learned
single Judge has not been challenged.
8. The argument of Mr.Prathap to the effect that the
permit holders have violated the permits and conditions for
permit has also been taken note of by the Division Bench in
paragraph 13 referring to the decision of the Supreme Court
in Hardev Motor Transport V. State of Madhya Pradesh
(AIR 2007 SC 839), wherein the Supreme Court rejected the
same argument stating that any violation of terms and
conditions of permit should be addressed applying
applicable rules and regulations for which consequences
would follow. However, such violations cannot be addressed
by the imposition of a tax, since tax is compensatory in
nature and not punitive or confiscatory.
9. On the basis of the discussion as above, a
mandamus, as sought for is issued. This writ petition is
allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
2.In light of the aforesaid order, this writ petition is
allowed. No costs.”
15. Having gone through the said judgment, I am of
the view that, the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition can
be considered and granted, because the petitioner also is
similarly placed as that of the writ petitioner whose case
was dealt with by the learned Judge in the said order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
referred to above.
16. Since the schedule mentioned in Ninth Schedule
referred above was the Act is referring only to the period for
which, if the petitioner comes forward to pay the advance
tax voluntarily, the same can be accepted by the respondents
and therefore, once such tax is paid even there may be a
multiple entry within the period and on the basis of the trip
further tax cannot be levied and this has been underlined in
the said decision referred to above.
17. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that,
this Writ Petition can be disposed of with the following
orders:
"that there shall be a direction to the respondents to
collect the tax from the petitioner who comes forward
voluntarily to tender the same in advance for 7 days or 30
days or 90 days itself for use in Tamil Nadu in accordance
with the Ninth Schedule of the Tami Nadu Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1974 in respect of his vehicle in KA 51 AG
4346."
18.With these directions, this Writ Petition is ordered
accordingly. However, there shall no order as to costs.”
9. In view of the said order having been passed,
following which, number of orders have been passed,
subsequently also, I am inclined to dispose of this writ
petition in the same line, following the said judgment.
10.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with
the following orders:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
(i) That there shall be a direction to the respondents to
collect the tax from the petitioner who comes forward
voluntarily to tender the same in advance for 7 days or 30
days or 90 days itself for use in Tamil Nadu in accordance
with the Ninth Schedule of the Tami Nadu Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1974 in respect of his vehicle in KA 51C
8517.
11.With this direction, this writ petition is ordered
accordingly. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.”
10. In view of the said order which has been passed already and
similar orders have been passed in number of cases, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that the petitioners also are entitled to get the same
relief. Accordingly, there shall be an order to the following effect:
That there shall be a direction to the respondents to
collect the tax from the petitioners who come forward
voluntarily to tender the same in advance for 7 days or 30
days or 90 days itself for use in Tamil Nadu in accordance
with the Ninth Schedule of the Tami Nadu Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1974 in respect of their vehicles bearing
Registration Nos. KA 51 C 3171, KA 51 A 8959 and KA 51
C 7349 respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
11. With this direction, all the Writ Petitions are ordered
accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
22.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Note : Issue order copy on 26.04.2022
Sgl
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Anupparpalayam Assessment Circle
Tiruppur.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Tiruppur Rural Assessment Circle,
Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Sgl
W.P.Nos.10006 to 10008 of 2022
22.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
