01Facts
The appellant, proprietor of "Aviation Express," operates a Tourist Maxi Cab service in Chennai
p. 2Historically, the appellant paid motor vehicle taxes on a quarterly basis under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974
pp. 2-3Following 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
p. 3, 12The 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
p. 4The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 01.08.2025
p. 5The appellant preferred this intra-Court appeal, arguing the tax is unenforceable without new Rules and that it constitutes double taxation
p. 502Issues
i.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?
p. 7 / para. 8ii.2. Whether the imposition of lifetime tax on old vehicles, which had previously paid quarterly taxes, amounts to the vice of double taxation?
p. 7 / para. 8, 27iii.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?
p. 10 / para. 1603Law Applied
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
pp. 7-8It relied on the definition of "lifetime tax" under Section 2(3A) and the tax rates specified in the Eighth Schedule
pp. 8, 15-16The 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
p. 9the 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
pp. 10-11Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 11 provisions
Section 2Section 3Section 4Section 8Section 9Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 13Section 14Section 15Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 47
04Reasoning
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
p. 10Regarding 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
pp. 17-18The 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
p. 17the 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
pp. 18-1905Holding
the levy of lifetime tax under the Amendment Act 30/2023 is enforceable even in the absence of new Rules because the statute and existing 1974 Rules provide sufficient guidance
pp. 17-18The Court further held that no double taxation exists as the State is only collecting the difference in tax
p. 19The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge
p. 19Original Court PDF
V.Krishnamurthy,vsThe State of Tamil Nadu
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
