Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 24-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Appellant: V. Krishnamurthy, Proprietor of Aviation Express, operating tourist maxi‑cab services at Chennai airports for over 35 years.
  • Respondents: State of Tamil Nadu (represented by Principal Secretary, Home Department), the Transport Commissioner, and the Regional Transport Officer, Chennai South.
  • Subject Matter: Challenge to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation [Amendment] Act, 2023 (Act 30/2023) which introduced a lifetime tax on old tourist maxi‑cab vehicles, payable at rates specified in Part II of the Eighth Schedule.
  • Appellant’s Contentions: (i) Enforcement of the lifetime tax is invalid without framed Rules prescribing the mode and manner of payment; (ii) The tax amounts to double taxation because earlier quarterly taxes had already been paid.
  • Respondents’ Position: Government is empowered to revise tax rates provided the aggregate increase does not exceed 50 % of the schedule rate; the lifetime tax is payable as a lump‑sum, with the difference to be collected after crediting taxes already paid; existing 1974 Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules remain applicable.
  • Legislative Background: Amendment Act 30/2023 received assent on 06‑09‑2023, came into force on 09‑11‑2023 via Notification No. 11 [2/HO/897 [B/2023]]; it amended Section 4[1‑A] to bring old tourist maxi‑cab vehicles within the lifetime‑tax regime and substituted clause [b] accordingly.
  • Relevant Provisions Cited: Section 3 (levy of tax), Section 3[2] (rate increase not exceeding 50 %), Section 2[3A] (definition of “lifetime tax”), Section 4[1‑A] (payment of lifetime tax), Section 5 (definition of “prescribed” as by Rules), and the Eighth Schedule rates based on vehicle cost and age.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the Schedule itself provides sufficient statutory guidance; the existing 1974 Rules continue to prescribe payment modes, making additional Rules unnecessary.
  • It rejected the argument that the absence of Rules renders the lifetime tax unenforceable.
  • The claim of double taxation was dismissed because the respondents will collect only the tax difference after accounting for previously paid quarterly/half‑yearly/annual taxes.
  • The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded to either party, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Topics: Taxation, Transport Regulation