Writ appeal by transport authorities against a Single Judge order releasing a detained tourist maxi cab. The Division Bench held the Single Judge applied the wrong provision; the Eighth Schedule of the 2012 Amendment Act governs such vehicles. Appeal allowed and Single Judge's order set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.(MD)No.1513 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD)No.1513 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.10784 of 2018
: Appellants
Vs.
W.A.(MD)No.1513 of 2018
V.Vijayakannan
: Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 12.10.2018 passed in W.P.(MD) No.21238 of 2018.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Sarangan Addl. Govt. Pleader For Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J. )
Though notice has been served on the respondent and his name has also been printed in the cause list, none appears for him.
3.The respondent has filed the writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned proceedings of the third appellant/third respondent in Detained Order No.A1001465 dated 20.09.2018 and quash the same and consequently, direct the appellants 3 and 4/respondents 3 and 4 to release the petitioner's vehicle in
W.A.(MD)No.1513 of 2018
bearing Registration No.TN-57-BX-7113 on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 08.10.2018. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by referring to Section 4 (i) (aa) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2012, as if, the vehicle capacity is based on the seat capacity of the vehicle 4 + 1, whereas, the respondent's vehicle by name, Tourist Maxi Cap got seat capacity of 13. Therefore, as per the amended Act, 2012, Eighth Schedule was shown Sections 3, 4(1-A)(a) and (aaa) and the same was extracted hereunder:
EIGHTH SCHEDULE
[See sections 3, 4(1-A)(a) and (aaa)]
Part - I
New tourist maxi-cab, with a floor area of more than 6 square
metre, which vehicle is permitted to carry more than seven persons but not more than thirteen persons including the driver.
At the time of registration Rate of Tax
(i) If the cost of the vehicle does 10 percent of the cost of vehicle not exceed rupees 10 lakh
(ii) If the cost of the vehicle15 per cent of the cost of vehicle exceeds rupees 10 lakh
Explanation.—For the purpose of this Schedule, “cost of vehicle” means the cost of vehicle at the time of purchase, in such manner as may be prescribed.
W.A.(MD)No.1513 of 2018
order, which is impugned. As pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader that Section 4(1)(aa) is not applicable to the respondent's case and only eight schedule of the Amendment Act would only be applicable.
[P.V.,J.] [K.K.R.K.,J.] skn 20.08.2024 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes
W.A.(MD)No.1513 of 2018
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
skn
W.A.(MD)No.1513 of 2018 and C.M.P(MD)No.10784 of 2018
20.08.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge correctly applied Section 4(1)(aa) instead of the Eighth Schedule of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2012 for taxing a tourist maxi cab with 13 seats.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Joint Transport Commissioner, Madurai Zone
The Regional Transport Officer, Dindigul
The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Unit Office Batlagundu
The State (Sub Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station)
V.Vijayakannan
P.Velmurugan
K.K.Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
