LexA. VENKATAKRISHNAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 868 A A.VENKATAKRISHNAN .,_,_....... v I STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. Civil Appeal No. 1120 of 20Q9 8 FEBRUARY 19,2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ] Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment). Act, .. c 1998 - Contract carriage - Repeated increase in rate of tax - Challenge to, by appellant- Petitions dismissed by High Court ""'" On appeal, held: Petitions filed before High Court were very vague - Appellant did not discharge the initial burden - It did 1 not furnish statistical data as to disproportionately of rate of ,. D tax for State to submit its quantifiable and measurable data justifying the impugned rate - Question being of public -) importance, appellant permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file proper writ petition. The question which arose for consideration in this E appeal was whether the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1998, by which initially the rate of tax in respect of contract carriage stood increased from Rs.1500/- per seat per quarter to Rs. 2000/- per seat per quarter, and subsequently from Rs. 2000/- per seat per t F quarter to Rs. 3000/-per seat per quarter was valid. • I- Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The initial burden on the appellant itself has not been discharged in the sense that the petitions G filed before the High Court were very sketchy. A challenge of this nature requires the appellant to furnish statistical data as to disproportionately of the rate of tax before the ~· State could be called upon to submit quantifiable and measurable data justifying the impugned rate. Ultimately, H 868 ' \.- . I 11 .... . i .• ' A.VENKATAKRISHNAN V. 869 ·STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. it is the State which has to meet the allegations made in A the writ petitions and if those allegations made in the writ petitions are vague, in accurate or insufficient then it would not be possible for the State to submit its reply/data to the Court. [Para 6) [870; 871-G] 1.2 As questions of public importance has arisen in B these matters, particularly in the context of the principles of proportionality under Article 14 of the Constitution and the later development of law by this Court in the case of Jindal Stainless Ltd., the appellant is permitted to withdraw the Civil Appeal with liberty to file proper writ C petition, if so advised. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court which is based on the petition originally filed by the petitioners. [Paras 10 and 11) [871- F; 871-872-G-H] Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) and Another Vs. State of Haryana D and Others (2006) 7 SCC 241; Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 1177 of 2006 decided by Supreme Court on 28.11.2007 - referred to. Case Law Reference (2006) 7 SCC 241 Referred to. Para 7, 10 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 1120 of 2009 E F From the Judgemeht and Order dated 19.11.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. Nos. 18618 of 2003, 18619 of 2003, 18620 of 2003, 18621 of 2003. Ki ran Suri, for the Appellants. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. · G 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division H 870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A Bench of the Madras High Court dismiss.ing several. Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals including Writ Petition Nos.18618/ 2003 to 1.862112003. · · 3. The short question which arises for determination in this Civil Appeal concerns challenge to the Constitutional validity of 8 Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1998, by which initially the rate of tax in respect of contract carriage stood increased from Rs.1500/- per seat per quarter to Rs.2000/ - per seat. per qua.rter,· and subsequently the said rate stood enhanced from Rs.2000/, per seat per quarter to Rs.3000/- per C seat per quarter vide Notification No.1184 dated 30.11.2001 with effect from 1st December 2001. .. · - . 4. The basis of t~e, challenge rests on the uneven burden placed· on the owners· of contract ·carriage vis-a-vis stage 0 carriage. Broadly it is contended that there is no rational in the imposition of the levy, that tax is imposed indiscriminately, that it is· levied to cross-subsidize~stage carriage and that uneven burden has been placed ·on the owners of contract carriage which has no nex
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.