9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esolution passed in the General Council meeting held on 11.07.2022 and a notification to that effect has been issued on 14.07.2022. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent has no right to collect toll from the vehicles entering into the petitioner's premises. The petitioner further contended that imposing such entry tax to the vehicles entering into the petitioner's premises is unjust and unreasonable. Hence challenging the above, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The first respondent has filed counter. In the counter it is contended by the first respondent that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition as the petitioner is not a person aggrieved by the levy of toll to the vehicles that are entering into the petitioner's premises. The payment of the levy is by the owners of the vehicles and not by the petitioner. Further, due to the collection of the toll, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. 5. It is further contended by the first respondent that collection of toll has been done for the past more than 30 years and the records of the Chitlapakkam Town Panchayat shows toll collection as early as from the y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inatory in nature and the same cannot be allowed and in fact it has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that if really the toll has been compensatory in nature they ought to have collected the same from all the vehicles entering into a particular road, but the order of the first respondent is for collecting toll from the vehicles entering into the petitioner's premises is nothing but discriminatory and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that collection of toll has been going on for the past more than 30 years. He also brought to the notice of this Court the resolutions passed in the year 1989 and 1990 by the then Municipality in this regard. According to him, only in order to collect the cost for repairing the road due to heavy traffic flow in the area, licence has been provided and therefore there is no discrimination adopted. Further according to the learned counsel the collection of toll is from all the vehicles entering into those two roads and therefore submitted that the petitioner is not an aggrieved party and he cannot maintain th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilities and the tax imposed for augmenting general revenue of the State cannot be construed as compensatory. 16. A Division Bench of this Court in ITC Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2007) 2 CTC 577 has held that tax levied under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 is not compensatory tax within the meaning of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution and also held that it cannot be said that maintaining of roads, providing bridges, etc., is compensatory in nature so as to meet the outlay incurred for some special advantage to trade, commerce and intercourse and it is also held that there is no connection or nexus with the collection of entry tax and its utilisation for the benefit of traders/manufacturers from whom such tax is collected and that consequently the levy of entry tax is unauthorised and violative of Article 301 of the Constitution. The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Thressiamma L.Chirayil Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2007) 7 VST 293 (Ker). 17. In State of Karnataka Vs. Hansa Corporation reported in AIR 1981 SC 462 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "The State did not att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t does not permit to levy tax. Admittedly, there is no material whatsoever available on record so as to substantiate the submission of the first respondent to show that only because of the lorries entering into the petitioner's warehouse the roads suffered damages and to meet out that expenses recovery has to be made. 20. In Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2006) 7 SCC 241 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the compensatory tax is a charge for offering trade facilities and they are based on the principle of equivalence and relying upon the Hansa Corporation case (cited supra) has held in paragraph 11 as follows: "11.....We are of the opinion that maintaining of roads, providing bridges, etc., cannot be said to be compensatory in nature so as to constitute special advantage to trade, commerce and intercourse. Even otherwise, a welfare State is bestowed with the responsibilities of providing good roads and bridges for the benefit of the taxpaying citizens and hence to contend that the impugned levy is being raised only for the said purpose is not justified. Maintenance of roads, bridges, etc., are generally met from the general funds or revenue. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
