Madras High Court

K.Boopal vs The Motor Vehicles Inspector (Nt) on 4 March, 2022

                                                                              W.P.No.5030 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 04.03.2022

                                                       CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

                                                  W.P.No.5030 of 2022

                     K.Boopal                                                     ... Petitioner
                                                          Vs

                     1.The Motor Vehicles Inspector (NT),
                       Zuzuvadi Check Post, Hosur,
                       Krishnagiri District.

                     2.The Motor Vehicles Inspector,
                       Bagalur Check Post,
                       Hosur,
                       Krishnagiri District.                                   ... Respondents

                     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.


                                      For Petitioner   : Mr.A.Ganesan

                                      For Respondents : Mr.P.Anandhakumar
                                                        Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                     1/11
                                                                                   W.P.No.5030 of 2022

                                                           ORDER

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.5030 of 2022

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.5030 of 2022

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.5030 of 2022

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 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. No.5751 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.5030 of 2022

2021 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.

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.5030 of 2022

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.5030 of 2022

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 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.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.5030 of 2022

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:

(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.