HANS RAJ AND SONS versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 17-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HANS RAJ AND SONS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. 
JULY 17, 2002 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Levy of Tolls Act, 1995: Sections 3 and 4: 
Notification No. SRO 348-Levy of additional toll tax on dry fruits- C 
Validity of-Held, Notification is beyond the purview of Section 3 of the Act 
since State Government is not vested with power to levy additional toll tax-
However, this ruling will have prospective effect. 
Respondent-State issued Notification whereby additional toll tax was 
levied on certain dry fruits. Appellant-Petitioners and others filed Writ D 
Petitions challenging the validity and legality of the Notification and 
alternatively sought for grant of exemption of additional levy of toll tax 
on the ground that State Government, by another notification had granted 
exemption from levying of additional tax to those who were engaged in 
the process of manufacturing of dry fruits. According to the appellants, E 
in their factory dry fruits were being subjected to various tests and 
processes, manual as well as mechanical, to ensure best quality supply to 
foreign markets and therefore claimed exemption from levy of toll tax 
under the said notification. High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions. Hence 
this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that toll t~x as levied was in the 
nature of fee. Hence there has to be an element of quid pro quo. Since the 
State Government was not spending any amount for construction and 
maintenance of high ways, the levy of toll tax was not justified. 
F 
On behalf of respondent-State, it was contended that the toll tax G 
levied was not fee but like a tax to which principle of quid pro quo applied; 
and that the activities undertaken by the appellants were not covered b1 
the term 'manufacture', therefore, they were not entitled to exemption 
from levying of toll tax under the relevant notification. 
199 
H 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Tolls are of different types and may be levied in different 
situations; it ordinarily means the amount which the Government, or a 
local authority or a person duly authorised by the Government may collect 
for passage of carriages and vehicles over a road or bridge. This meaning 
B is by no means exhaustive. Where provision for levy and collection of tolls 
is made under the legislative enactment or a subordinate legislation then 
the levy is to be governed strictly according to the provisions of the statute 
or rules or any other instrument, as the case may be. [209-A, BJ 
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles revised and 
C · edited C. T. Onions. Thiri Edition, Volume II, page 2206; Wharton's Law 
Lexicon, 14th Edition, pages 999-1000; Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh 
Edition and Halsbury 's Laws of England, 4th Edition, page 96, referred to. 
1.2. Levy of Tolls Act was enacted with a view to consolidate in one 
D Act the provisions of levy of tolls upon public roads and bridges in Jammu 
and Kashmir State. In the Schedule to the Act are enumerated vehicles of 
different types and the rates at which the toll is to be charged in respect 
of the same. From the contents of the Schedule it is clear that the Statute 
contemplates levy of toll for crossing upon different road and bridges in 
the State and the State is vested with the power to prescribe by Notification 
E the toll rate of the levy and the manner of collections of the same. 
[209-F; 210~0, E] 
F 
G 
1.3. The scheme of the Statute does not envisage levy of toll on goods 
or on any transaction of sale thereof. It is clearly a levy upon user of public 
roads and bridges in the State. The scheme fits in with the concept of tolls, 
be it toll transverse of toll through, to be levied in lieu of the advantage 
or privilege provided by the State Government for user of roads and 
bridge lying within the State. For the purpose of the levy the agency which 
has construed the roads or bridges in question or the source of finance 
for implementation of the project are not relevant. (210-E, F) 
1.4. On a primafacie reading of Notification No. 348 in the context 
of the provision in Section 3(1), it is manifest that the Notification is not . 
in conformity with the power vested in the State Government under the 
Section. The intention is to levy toll on dry fruits including almonds, 
walnuts and walnut kernels exported out of the State through certain exit 
H points by roads

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.