A AARIFF Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Appeal Nos. 1293 to 1297 of 1998 are directed against common order passed in WRIT Petition Nos. 9553 of 1998 etc. , batch dated 24-9-1998 in and by which learned Single Judge had upheld the validity of the amendment to First Schedule to the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act enhancing the tax in respect of contract carriages (Omni Buses) from Rs. 1 ,500 /-to Rs. 2,000/- per seat per quarter.

(2.) WRIT Petitions namely, W. P. Nos. 212/2002 etc. , batch have been filed questioning the order of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 1184 Home (Tr. I) Department dated 30-11-2001, increasing the tax in respect of contract carriages from Rs. 2 ,000 /- to Rs. 3,000/- per seat per quarter with effect from 1-12-2001.

(3.) (a) Mr. V. T. Gopalan, learned senior counsel and Mr. R. Natesan, learned counsel for the petitioners, have raised the following submissions: i) The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 6733/90 etc. , batch dated 20-12-90 cannot be said to have concluded the issues raised by the petitioners and, therefore, their contention regarding the validity of Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1998 and the notification of the government dated 30-11-2001 increasing the motor vehicle taxation for contract carriages from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- and from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-respectively per seat per quarter still remain to be considered; ii) The Motor Vehicle Taxation is a Regulatory or compensatory tax and the impugned enactment and the orders which impose a very heavy burden on the contract carriages, as compared with other class motor vehicles, more particularly stage carriage, amounts to discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; iii) The increase of motor vehicle tax on contract carriages from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- and further to Rs. 3,000/- per seat per quarter would result in the annihilation of business of many contract carriage operators on account of the heavy burden of Taxation; hence liable to be struck down as arbitrary and violative of Article 14; iv) Relevant facts have not been taken into account while increasing the taxation of contract carriages, namely, that there were a number of categories of contract carriages for different purposes which ought to have been taken into account. b) On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for State Government would submit that in the absence of challenge relating to competence of State Legislature to pass the amendment Act or the power of the government to amend the Schedule has not been questioned, and that the earlier division Bench judgement of this Court dated 20-12-90 considered and concluded all the issues in question. In the Bench judgement, similar complaints were urged to the effect that the increase of taxation would annihilate their business and that the burden of tax is disproportionate on the contract carriage operators in the State, besides complaint based on Article 301 and article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. All the contentions were not accepted by the Division Bench even in 1990. He further contended that the contention of the petitioners based on discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is without any merit. According to him, the classification as stage carriage vehicle and contract carriage vehicle have been upheld by the Supreme Court. He also contended that the complaint of disproportionate burden of contract carriages as compared to stage carriages was raised by the petitioners and rejected by the Division Bench in W. P. No. 6733/90 dated 20-12-90. He further contended that the increase of tax in question have been made taking into account various factors, including the fact that contract carriages have no limitation on the number of miles that it could run, the unrestricted roads that it could operate and the unrestricted rate that it could collect from the public using the vehicle as compared to the stage carriage vehicle which is bound to collect only the rate fixed by the government. Coming to the contention relating to destruction of lawful business of tourist bus operation, according to him, having regard to the rate collected by the contract carriages which is 2 to 3 times the rate collected by the stage carriages, it cannot be said that the amount increased is exproprietory, when alone the rate of tax can be interfered with. It is also stated that the tax amount are collected as part of the rates from the public, inasmuch as the travelling public in contract carriages are from higher economic strata of the society than the travelling public in stage carriages who cannot pay higher amounts and, therefore, the classification is in furtherance of public interest and prayed for dismissal of all the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions.