V.Krishnamurthy, vs The State of Tamil Nadu

WA No. 192 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 17-07-2026
DELIVERED ON: 24-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA
WA No. 192 of 2026
AND
CMP Nos. 1764 to 1767 OF 2026
V.Krishnamurthy,
Proprietor,
Aviation Express,
No.66/142, Eldams Road,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 018
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Tr.1) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai -600 009.
2. The Transport Commissioner,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport office, Chennai South,
Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 041
..Respondent(s)
WA No. 192 of 2026
Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
the Order dated 01.08.2025 passed in W.P. No. 36444 of 2023 on the file of this
Honble Court, and consequently allow the Writ Petition as prayed for.
__________
Page1 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
WA No. 192 of 2026
For Appellant(s): Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior counsel for Mr.Niranjan
Rajagopalan
for G.R.Associates
Niranjan Rajagopalan
Indrajith S
Ragesh Bhagavath L
Avanticka B
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Surendar, GA
JUDGMENT
N.MALA, J.
(1) Crest fallen by the order dated 01.08.2025, passed in WP.No.36444/2023,
dismissing the appellant’s writ petition, the above intra-Court appeal is
preferred.
Facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition:-
(2) The appellant/writ petitioner is operating Tourists Maxi Cab Services in
the name and style of ‘’M/s.Aviation Express’’. The appellant provides
tourist maxi cab services to air travellers at Chennai, both international
and domestic airports and has been in the trade for over 35 years. The
appellant claims to have paid all applicable taxes and charges relating to
his vehicles as mandated by law. The appellant states that he is paying
the taxes on quarterly basis for his vehicles as per Section 4[1] of the
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, [hereinafter referred to
as ‘’the Taxation Act’’]. According to the appellant, the manner and
__________
Page2 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
period of payment is prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
Taxation Rules, 1974. While so, the respondents/Government introduced
the Amendment Act 30/2023, amending Section 4[1-A] of the Taxation
Act and the corresponding Schedules by substituting certain provisions.
The appellant is aggrieved by the introduction of lifetime tax under the
Amendment Act 30/2023, for old Tourist Maxi Cab Vehicles, at
differential rates as per the year of registration. The appellant further
states that when he attempted to pay the quarterly tax through the online
portal, the same was not accepted citing the introduction of the new
Amendment. The appellant states that, while so, vide letter dated
st nd
16.11.2023, the 1 respondent directed the 2 respondent, to extend the
time for payment of the tax for the current quarter, difference of tax, and
also to extend the time for exercising the option to pay in installments or
lump sum, the lifetime tax in respect of the old Tourist Maxi Cab
Vehicles, by getting an Undertaking affidavit from the owners of the
nd
vehicles. The 2 respondent, accordingly extended the time till
31.12.2023. The appellant states that it was expecting the Government to
notify the Rules, Circulars, instructions etc., pursuant to the Amendment
Act, but instead of notifying them, the officials insisted on immediate
payment of lifetime tax. The appellant, also submitted a representation
rd
on 30.11.2023, to the 3 respondent seeking copies of the Rules and
Orders, if any ; but the officials expressed ignorance of any Orders, Rules
__________
Page3 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
etc., and reiterated that the quarterly tax would not be accepted. The
appellant contends that in the absence of Rules prescribing the mode and
manner of payment of lifetime tax, consequences such as penalty, permit
ineffectiveness etc., would not arise, and that in any event, it is settled
law that tax should not be introduced or enforced during an on-going
assessment period unless expressly authorised. The other contentions of
the appellant raised in its affidavit are not traversed in detail and suffice it
to state that the appellant laments that in the absence of the Rules
prescribing the mode and the manner for payment or any reasonable
mechanism for adjustment of quarterly tax already paid, the respondents
should be restrained from insisting upon payment of lifetime tax for the
appellant’s Tourist Maxi Cab Vehicles pursuant to the Amendment Act
30/2023, till the Rules are framed and published. Under the
circumstances, the appellant filed the writ petition seeking for a
mandamus forbearing the respondents from insisting upon payment of
lifetime tax for the petitioner’s Maxi Cab Vehicles pursuant to the Tamil
Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation [Amendment Act], 1974 [Act 30 of
2023], pending framing / amendment of Rules in regard to the same and
publication of details of implementation and modalities.
(3) The respondents refuted the allegations of the appellant/writ petitioner by
filing a counter affidavit.
__________
Page4 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
Findings of the learned Single Judge:-
(4) The learned Judge of this Court, on appreciation of the rival contentions
and on the basis of the materials placed on record, held that the
contention of the appellant that the demand for payment of lifetime tax in
the absence of corresponding provisions / Rules / Circulars / Orders or
mechanism, was ill-conceived. The learned Judge, on an appreciation
and interpretation of the amended provisions and the Principal Act, found
that the writ petition deserved no merit and hence, dismissed the same,
giving liberty to the writ petitioner to discharge his obligation of paying
the lifetime tax on the basis of the Scheme / Circular of the respondents.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Judge, the writ petitioner
filed the above Writ Appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:-
(5) Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant
made two-fold submissions. Firstly, the learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the amendment to Section 4[1-A] of the Taxation Act, was
not enforceable in view of the failure of the Government to notify the
Rules prescribing the mechanism or the mode and manner of assessment
and payment of the lifetime tax. The second submission of the learned
Senior counsel was that the lifetime tax imposed on old vehicles
amounted to double taxation since there was no clarity on the adjustment
of the taxes already paid by the appellant under the erstwhile regime.
__________
Page5 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
Contentions of the Respondents:-
(6) The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that
admittedly, the Government is empowered to enhance and revise the tax
structure in respect of particular class of vehicles or in respect of classes
of vehicles as per the provisions of the Taxation Act, with an intention to
fetch additional revenue to the Government, provided the increase in
aggregate, does not exceed 50% of the rate specified in the Schedule.
The learned Government Advocate, submitted that the appellant has not
disputed the authority of the Government to impose the lifetime tax, the
only objection raised by the appellant is that in the absence of Rules
clarifying the mode and the manner for payment and the mechanism for
assessment, the levy of lifetime tax is unsustainable / unenforceable. The
learned Government Advocate further submitted that the contention of
the appellant that the levy of lifetime tax suffers from the vice of double
taxation, is unfounded and baseless since it is only the difference in tax
which would be collected by deducting the tax [quarterly / half-yearly /
annual] already paid by the appellant. The learned Government
Advocate, submitted that in the absence of a challenge to the amended
provisions, the relief claimed in the writ petition ought not to be
entertained since no mandamus can be issued restraining the respondents
from discharging their duties as mandated by law. The learned
__________
Page6 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
Government Advocate, therefore submitted that there are no merits in the
writ appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Findings of the Court:-
(7) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the
learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.
(8) The core issue that falls for consideration in the writ appeal is whether, in
the absence of Rules, consequent to the amendment to Section 4[1-A] of
the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, and the
corresponding amendment to the Schedules including the substitution of
the Eighth Schedule of the Taxation Act, which provides for manner and
collection of lifetime tax, particularly in relation to old Maxi Cab
Vehicles, the collection of lifetime tax is sustainable. The other issue
relates to double taxation.
Introduction:-
(9) Before discussing the issues raised in the writ appeal, it would be useful
to refer to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation
Act, 1974. Section 3 of the Taxation Act provides for levy of tax for all
kinds of motor vehicles which are kept for use or used in the State of
Tamil Nadu, as per the rate specified in the Schedules attached to the
Sections [Schedules I to X]. Under Section 3[2] of the Taxation Act, the
Government may, by Notifications from time to time, increase the rate of
tax specified in the Schedules provided such increase does not, in
__________
Page7 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
aggregate, exceed 50% of the rate specified in the Schedules. Section
2[3A] of the Act defines ‘’lifetime tax’’ as tax leviable in one lump sum
in advance for the lifetime on a motor vehicle. The Government of Tamil
Nadu has been levying lifetime tax for different categories of vehicles
from different points of time.
(10) From the above provisions of the Act, it is clear that the Government of
Tamil Nadu is empowered to levy and revise the tax structure in respect
of classes of vehicles covered under the Schedules attached to the Act,
provided such levy does not in aggregate, exceed 50% of the rate
specified in the Schedules.
Background to the Amendment Act 30/2023 relating to Lifetime Tax on
Tourists Maxi Cab Vehicles [Old and New]:-
(11) The present amendment is concerned with the levy of lifetime tax in
respect of old and new Tourist Maxi Cab Vehicles by Amendment Act 30
of 2023, with effect from 09.11.2023.
Nature and Object of the Lifetime Tax:-
(12) It is common knowledge that taxes are levied for the usage of public
roads by the vehicles and as such, the levy of tax is compensatory in
nature. Lifetime tax is one time payment spread over the economic life of
the vehicle. The collection of lifetime tax as a one time payment, has
been recognised by the Courts as being administratively convenient and
also as being beneficial not only because the users of the vehicles do not
__________
Page8 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
have to go to the office of the Regional Transport Office quarterly, half-
yearly or annually, to pay the tax, but also because they do not have to
pay the increased tax from time to time over the economic life of the
vehicle.
(13) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs.
M.Krishnappan and Another reported in 2005 [2] CTC 290 : 2005 [4]
SCC 53, while approving the imposition of lifetime tax on motor vehicles
by the Amending Act, 27/1998, held as follows:-
‘’22. In the present case we are satisfied that the levy in
question being one-time tax continues to be a part of
regulatory measure. For administrative reasons, in the
matter of collection of tax, one-time payment of tax is
administratively convenient and at the same time, it is also
beneficial to the users of the vehicles who do not have to go
to the office of the RTO every year to pay the annual taxes.
It is also beneficial to the users of the motor vehicles, as
they do not have to pay taxes at the increased rates from
time to time over the economic life of the vehicle as
contemplated by Section 3(2) of the Act…..’’
(14) So also, this Court, in R.Mahalakshmi and Others Vs. The Government
of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Transport Department, Chennai
and Others [2012 [5] LW 581], while testing the validity of Sections 4
__________
Page9 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
and 7 of the Taxation [Amendment] Act, 2012 [Act 13 of 2012],
following the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in Krishnappan’s
case, upheld the validity of the Act.
(15) The appellant, in the light of the aforementioned judgments, probably and
consciously chose not to challenge the levy under the amended
provisions, but restricted the relief for a writ of mandamus forbearing the
respondents from insisting upon the appellant to pay the lifetime tax in
respect of the appellant’s vehicles pending framing the Rules.
Maintainability of the Prayer in the Writ Petition:-
(16) We have our own reservations on the maintainability of the prayer in the
writ petition. The appellant has admittedly not challenged the vires of the
amended provisions. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the
relief of mandamus sought, is wholly misconceived and consequently not
maintainable. So long as the statutory provisions remain unchallenged
and hold the field, this Court cannot issue a writ restraining the
respondents from discharging the statutory duties cast upon them.
Granting such a relief would in effect, amount to interdicting the statutory
authorities from enforcing a valid subsisting law, which is plainly
impermissible in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Under the
circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Judge, rightly relied on
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Chand Hem
Raj and Others Vs. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory,
__________
Page10 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
Himachal Pradesh and Others, reported in 1971 [2] SCC 747, wherein
it was held as follows:-
‘’7…..No Court can give a direction to a Government to
refrain from enforcing a provision of law. Under these
circumstances, we must hold that the relief asked for by the
appellant cannot be granted.’’
(17) However, we do not propose to dismiss the writ appeal on the ground of
maintainability, and therefore, we now embark to examine whether the
framing of the Rules is mandatory for levying the lifetime tax as per the
amended provisions.
The Legislative History of Lifetime Tax on Maxi Cabs:-
(18) The Government of Tamil Nadu introduced the Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Taxation [Amendment] Act, 2012 [Act 13 of 2012]. Section 4
of the Amending Act substituted clause [a] of sub-section [1-A] of
Section 4 of the Principal Act. Similarly, Section 7 of the Amending Act
added new Schedules VII to IX to the Principal Act. By the addition of
the Eighth Schedule to the Principal Act and under Part I, lifetime tax was
imposed on new Tourists Maxi Cab Vehicles. The lifetime tax was not
levied for old Tourists Maxi Cab Vehicles, but quarterly tax alone was
levied as per Part II of Eighth Schedule. The levy of lifetime tax on new
Tourists Maxi Cab Vehicles by introduction of Eighth Schedule by the
Amendment Act 13 of 2012, was challenged before this Court in
R.Mahalakshmi and Others Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and
__________
Page11 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
Others [2012 [2] L.W. 581], referred to supra. The Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court dismissed the case, thereby upholding the validity of
Section 4 and Section 7 and also the addition of new Schedules VII to IX
to the Principal Act. The Government of Tamil Nadu introduced the
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation [Amendment] Act, 2023, which
was passed by the Legislative Assembly, after receiving the assent of the
Governor on 06.09.2023, and published as Act 30/2023, in Part IV-
Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Gazette Extraordinary No.381, dated
07.11.2023. As per Section 1[2] of the Amendment Act, ‘’it shall come
into force on such date as the State Government may, by Notification
appoint’’. The Government of Tamil Nadu, vide Notification No.11
[2/HO/897 [B/2023]], issued in G.O.[2D] No.443, Home [Transport-1]
Department, dated 07.11.2023, notified 09.11.2023 as the date on which
the Act shall come into force. By virtue of the Amendment Act and the
aforesaid Notification, the old Tourists Maxi Cab Vehicles were brought
within the scope of the lifetime tax as per the rates mentioned in Part II of
the Eighth Schedule attached to Sections 3 and 4[1-A] of the Taxation
Act.
(19) As already noted, the appellant has not challenged the provisions relating
to the levy of lifetime tax on old Tourists Maxi Cab Vehicles, but has
only questioned the enforceability of the Amendment Act in view of the
failure of the Government to frame the relevant Rules prescribing the
__________
Page12 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
manner in which the lifetime tax has to be paid. The learned Senior
counsel for the appellant submitted that under Section 4[1] of the
Principal Act, the tax levied under the Act is ‘’to be paid in the manner
prescribed by the registered owner or by any other person having
possession or control of the motor vehicle, at his choice either quarterly,
half yearly or annually on a license to be taken out by him for that
quarter, half year or annual, as the case may be.’’ The learned Senior
counsel, contends that in the absence of Rules, the prescription as
contemplated by the provision is absent and therefore, the Act cannot be
enforced. The learned Senior counsel, further contends that the
legislature contemplated the framing of Rules, which is evident from the
definition of the term ‘’prescribed’’, introduced under Section 5-A of the
Amendment Act, which reads as follows: ‘’prescribed’’ means
prescribed by Rules made under this Act.’’ Ergo, the learned Senior
counsel contends that the framing of the Rules is mandatory, since the
mode and manner of payment of lifetime tax, its assessment and the
authorities empowered to determine and receive the same, can be
prescribed only by the Rules.
(20) Section 4[1-A] of the Taxation Act, 1974, reads as follows:-
‘’ 4.Payment of Tax:-
[1]……
[1-A]Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
__________
Page13 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
[1]:- [a]In respect of the motor vehicles specified in Part-I
of the Second Schedule and in Part-1 of the Third Schedule,
at the time of its first registration, a lifetime tax shall be
paid at the rates specified in Part-I of Second Schedule or
in Part-1 of Third Schedule or Part 1 of Fifth Schedule as
the case may be, on a licence to be taken out for the lifetime
of such vehicles.
[b]In respect of the motor vehicles specified in Part-
II of the Third Schedule, the tax shall be paid either
annually at the rates specified in the First Schedule or for
the lifetime of such vehicles at the rates specified in Part II
of the Third Schedule as the case may be, on a licence to be
taken out for such vehicles for that year or for the lifetime,
as the case may be.’’
(21) Section 5 of the Amendment Act, amending Section 4 of the Taxation
Act, 1974, reads as follows:-
‘’ 5.In Section 4 of the Principal Act:-
[1]In sub-section [1-A]-
[a]for clause [a], the following clause shall be
substituted, namely-
‘’[a]in respect of the motor vehicles specified in
Part-I of the Second Schedule, in Part-I of the Third
Schedule, in Part-I of the Fifth Schedule, in Part-I of the
Seventh Schedule, in Part-I of the Eighth Schedule and in
Part-I of the Tenth Schedule, at the time of its registration,
a lifetime tax shall be paid at the rates specified therein, on
a licence to be taken out for the lifetime of such vehicles.’’
__________
Page14 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
[b]clause [aa] and clause [aaa] shall be omitted ;
[c]for clause [b], the following clause shall be
substituted, namely-
‘’[b]in respect of the old motor vehicles specified
in Part-II of the Second Schedule, in Part-II of the Third
Schedule, in Part-II of the Fifth Schedule, in Part-II of the
Seventh Schedule, in Part-II of the Eighth Schedule and in
Part-II of the Tenth Schedule, a lifetime tax shall be paid at
the rates specified therein on a licence to be taken out for
the lifetime of such vehicles’’.
(22) By the Amendment Act, clause [b] was substituted by bringing the old
Tourists Maxi Cab Vehicles within the fold of lifetime tax.
(23) Part-II of the Eighth Schedule reads as follows:-
Old Tourist Maxi Cab at the time of
assigning new registration mark under
Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act
or Old Tourist Maxi Cab plying and
registered in this State, and if it’s age
from the month of such registration
Rate of Life Tax
[per cent of the cost of the vehicle]
Cost of the Vehicle
S.No Age Not exceeding
Exceeding 5
lakhs but not
exceeding 10
Exceeding 10
Exceeding 20
5 Lakhs
lakhs but not
exceeding 20
lakhs
lakhs
lakhs
1 Not more than one year 10.75 per cent 11.75 per cent 16.75 per cent 18.75 per cent
2 More than one year but
not more than two years
10.50 per cent 11.50 per cent 16.50 per cent 18.50 per cent
3 More than two years but
not more than three years
10.25 per cent 11.25 per cent 16.25 per cent 18.25 per cent
4 More than three years but
not more than four years
10.00per cent 11.00per cent 16.00per cent 18.00per cent
__________
Page15 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
5 More than four years but
not more than five years
9.75per cent 10.75per cent 15.75per cent 17.75per cent
6 More than five years but
not more than six years
9.50per cent 10.50per cent 15.50per cent 17.50per cent
7 More than six years but
not more than seven
years
9.25per cent 10.25per cent 15.25per cent 17.25per cent
8 More than seven years
but not more than eight
years
9.00per cent 10.00per cent 15.00per cent 17.00per cent
9 More than eight years but
not more than nine years
8.75per cent 9.75per cent 14.75per cent 16.75per cent
10 More than nine years but
8.50per cent 9.50per cent 14.50per cent 16.50per cent
not more than ten years
11 More than ten years but
8.25per cent 9.25per cent 14.25per cent 16.25 per cent
not more than eleven
years
12 More than eleven years 8.00per cent 9.00per cent 14.00per cent 16.00per cent
(24) A reading of the aforesaid Schedule shows that the lifetime tax is
determined on the basis of the cost and the age of the vehicle. From the
Schedule, it is seen that depending upon the value [cost] of the vehicle,
the rate of tax decreases with the age of the vehicle. The issue before us
is not whether the determinants, namely, the age and the cost of the
vehicle, adopted for assessing the rate of lifetime tax for old Tourists
Maxi Cab Vehicles is valid or not, but whether in the absence of a Rule
prescribing the manner in which the lifetime tax levied is to be paid, the
levy is sustainable.
__________
Page16 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
(25) Upon a reading and analysis of the above Schedule, we are of the view
that the Schedule is self-contained and constitutes sufficient statutory
guidance for the levy of the lifetime tax, requiring the framing of Rules
wholly unnecessary. Further, it is not as if no Rules are in existence. The
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1974, are still in existence
and the Rules framed thereunder, prescribe for the mode of payment of
tax, the authority competent to fix the tax, recording a Certificate of
Registration, form of licence, period within which the tax has to be paid
and penalty for non-payment. We therefore find no substance in the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that in the
absence of Rules, the levy of lifetime tax under amended provisions is
unenforceable.
(26) Insofar as the contention of the learned Senior counsel, for the appellant
regarding the mandate of prescription by Rules, by relying on the
provisions of Section 4[1] and Section 4[1-A], Section 8 and Section 15
of the Taxation Act, are concerned, we find that the learned Single Judge
on proper appreciation, comparison and analysis of each of the
provisions, rightly rejected the contention. We have gone through each
of the provisions and on an analysis of the language of the provisions, we
find that there is nothing in sub-section [1-A] to Section 4 of the Taxation
Act which requires prescription by Rules in respect of the subject matter
specified therein. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, only in
__________
Page17 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
sub-section [1] of Section 4, it is stated that the tax levied shall be ’’be
paid in the manner prescribed’’. When, Section 4[1-A] does not speak of
any ‘’prescription’’ of Rules for payment of tax in contrast to the
provisions of Section 4[1], we are of the view that prescription of Rules
provided in Section 4[1], cannot be imported into sub-section [1-A] of
Section 4 of the Taxation Act. The learned Judge has also rightly found
that the provisions of Sections 8 to 15 of the Taxation Act, relating to the
period of payment of taxes on quarterly and half yearly basis, have no
bearing on sub-section [1-A] to Section 4 of the Act inasmuch as Section
4[1-A] deals with lifetime tax which is a one time payment and therefore,
the prescription provided for payment of tax under Sections 8 and 15 of
the Taxation Act have no relevance. We therefore, reject the submission
of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant on this aspect .
Double Taxation:-
(27) The learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the lifetime
tax imposed on the old vehicles amounted to double taxation inasmuch as
there was no clarity in adjustment of taxes already paid by the appellant
under the erstwhile regime. The contention regarding double taxation is
answered by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed in the writ
petition. The respondents stated as follows:-
‘’10.It is submitted that, the difference of tax means the
tax to be paid after detecting the tax[Quarterly/Half
__________
Page18 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
yearly/Annual] which was already paid for the vehicle. In
that sense it implies that the cases in which were the
Quarterly / Half Yearly / Annual Tax already been paid in
respect of old vehicles at the time of shifting to life time tax
may be detected from the life time tax due for the vehicle
subsequent to the amendment of Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act 30 of 2023.’’
(28) In the light of the categorical admission of the respondents that only the
difference in tax, would be collected by giving credit to the tax already
paid by the vehicle owners, we find that the apprehension of the appellant
is unwarranted. The apprehension of the appellant is sufficiently
addressed by the respondents and therefore, the contention regarding
double taxation is rejected.
(29) In fine, we find no merit in the writ appeal and accordingly, the same
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
(G.J.,J.) (N.M.,J.)
24-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AP
__________
Page19 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home (Tr.1) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.
2. The Transport Commissioner,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport office,
Chennai South, Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai - 600 041
__________
Page20 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )

WA No. 192 of 2026
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
AND
N.MALA J.
AP
Judgment in
WA No. 192 of 2026
24-07-2026
__________
Page21 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/07/2026 04:48:59 pm )