Statutory mandate for lifetime tax is enforceable without separate rules if schedule provides sufficient guidance.

The appellant, proprietor of "Aviation Express," operates a Tourist Maxi Cab service in Chennai

Historically, the appellant paid motor vehicle taxes on a quarterly basis under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974

Following the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Act 30/2023), the State introduced a "lifetime tax" for old Tourist Maxi Cab vehicles based on the vehicle's age and cost

The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to prevent the State from demanding this lifetime tax until specific Rules and implementation modalities were framed

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 01.08.2025

The appellant preferred this intra-Court appeal, arguing the tax is unenforceable without new Rules and that it constitutes double taxation

1. Whether, in the absence of specific Rules prescribing the mode and manner of assessment for old Maxi Cabs under the Amendment Act 30/2023, the collection of lifetime tax is sustainable?

2. Whether the imposition of lifetime tax on old vehicles, which had previously paid quarterly taxes, amounts to the vice of double taxation?

3. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain the Government from enforcing a valid statutory provision that has not been challenged as unconstitutional?

The court primarily applied Section 3 and Section 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 (as amended by Act 30/2023), which empowers the State to levy and revise lifetime tax

It relied on the definition of "lifetime tax" under Section 2(3A) and the tax rates specified in the Eighth Schedule

The Court invoked the precedent of State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Krishnappan (2005), which established that lifetime tax is a valid regulatory and compensatory measure for administrative convenience

the principle from Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Himachal Pradesh (1971), which held that Courts cannot grant a mandamus to restrain the Government from enforcing a valid provision of law

The Court first determined that seeking a mandamus without challenging the vires of the Amendment Act is legally untenable, as statutory authorities cannot be restrained from performing duties mandated by subsisting law

Regarding the need for Rules, the Court conducted a comparative analysis of Section 4(1) and 4(1-A); it found that while Section 4(1) uses the phrase "in the manner prescribed" (implying Rules), Section 4(1-A) does not contain such a requirement for lifetime tax

The Court reasoned that the Eighth Schedule of the Act is "self-contained," providing clear determinants (vehicle cost and age) for tax calculation, thus making additional Rules unnecessary for enforcement

the Court dismissed the "double taxation" argument by citing the State’s counter-affidavit, which clarified that credit is given for any quarterly/annual tax already paid, such that only the differential amount is collected upon shifting to the lifetime tax regime

The Court further held that no double taxation exists as the State is only collecting the difference in tax

The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge