SUBHRADEY Vs. JOY PRAKASH GULGULIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of appeals put to test the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in a string of writ petitions questioning the levy of composite fee by the State of Mizoram on vehicles authorized to ply in the said State under the Tourist Permit granted under subsection (9) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The writ petitioners most of whom are in appeal assailed the levy to be one without jurisdiction lacking constitutional as well as statutory sanction. The plea has been negative in the original proceedings. While admitting the appeal the appellants were permitted to pay 50% of the composite fee levied subject to the result thereof.

(2.) We have heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. K. Goswami and Mr. P. Bora, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. A. Dasgupta, Government Advocate, Mizoram. None appeared for the Union of India or the State of Assam.

(3.) The controversy centers around the notification dated 21.3.95 issued by the Transport Department, Govt. of Mizoram levying composite fee at the rates mentioned therein payable with effect from 1.4.95. While the appellants brand the levy as compulsory exaction by way of tax without any legislation backing it, the State of Mizoram pleads that it is a fee realizable for meeting the expenses towards development of tourism in the State.