Holding

The appellant must first furnish quantifiable data to establish disproportionality; failure to do so means the High Court’s dismissal stands and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

A. Venkatakrishnan challenged the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1998, which raised the tax on contract carriage from Rs.1500 to Rs.2000 per seat per quarter and later to Rs.3000. He filed several writ petitions in the Madras High Court, which were dismissed for lack of sufficient material. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner bore the initial burden of producing statistical data to demonstrate that the tax rates were disproportionate and violated Article 14. Since the petitions were vague and no such data were furnished, the Court could not interfere with the High Court’s order. However, recognizing the public importance of the issue, the Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal and file a proper writ petition with requisite details. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to re‑file.

Issues considered

The constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1998, under Article 14 (principle of proportionality).
The burden of proof in challenges to tax rates – whether the petitioner must first produce statistical evidence of disproportionality.
Whether the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petitions can be set aside on the ground of insufficient pleadings.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

constitutional lawtaxationmotor vehicle taxcontract carriageArticle 14proportionalityburden of proofwrit petitionpublic interest

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 868

A A.VENKATAKRISHNAN .,_,_.......
v I

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
Civil Appeal No. 1120 of 20Q9
FEBRUARY 19,2009
8
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ]
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment). Act, ..
1998 - Contract carriage - Repeated increase in rate of tax -
c Challenge to, by appellant- Petitions dismissed by High Court
""'" On appeal, held: Petitions filed before High Court were very
vague - Appellant did not discharge the initial burden - It did 1
not furnish statistical data as to disproportionately of rate of ,.
tax for State to submit its quantifiable and measurable data
D justifying the impugned rate - Question being of public -)

importance, appellant permitted to withdraw the appeal with
liberty to file proper writ petition.
The question which arose for consideration in this
appeal was whether the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
E
Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1998, by which initially the rate
of tax in respect of contract carriage stood increased from
Rs.1500/- per seat per quarter to Rs. 2000/- per seat per
quarter, and subsequently from Rs. 2000/- per seat per t
quarter to Rs. 3000/-per seat per quarter was valid. •
F I-
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The initial burden on the appellant itself
has not been discharged in the sense that the petitions
filed before the High Court were very sketchy. A challenge
G of this nature requires the appellant to furnish statistical
data as to disproportionately of the rate of tax before the ~·

State could be called upon to submit quantifiable and
measurable data justifying the impugned rate. Ultimately,

H 868 '
\.-
. I

11
.... . i .•
A.VENKATAKRISHNAN V. 869
·STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

it is the State which has to meet the allegations made in A
the writ petitions and if those allegations made in the writ
petitions are vague, in accurate or insufficient then it would
not be possible for the State to submit its reply/data to
the Court. [Para 6) [870; 871-G]
1.2 As questions of public importance has arisen in B
these matters, particularly in the context of the principles
of proportionality under Article 14 of the Constitution and
the later development of law by this Court in the case of
Jindal Stainless Ltd., the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the Civil Appeal with liberty to file proper writ C
petition, if so advised. There is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment of the High Court which is based on the petition
originally filed by the petitioners. [Paras 10 and 11) [871-
F; 871-872-G-H]
Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) and Another Vs. State of Haryana D
and Others (2006) 7 SCC 241; Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners
Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Civil Appeal No.
1177 of 2006 decided by Supreme Court on 28.11.2007 -
referred to.
E
Case Law Reference
(2006) 7 SCC 241 Referred to. Para 7, 10
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 1120
of 2009
F
From the Judgemeht and Order dated 19.11.2005 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. Nos. 18618
of 2003, 18619 of 2003, 18620 of 2003, 18621 of 2003.
Ki ran Suri, for the Appellants.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by G

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted. ·

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A Bench of the Madras High Court dismiss.ing several. Writ
Petitions and Writ Appeals including Writ Petition Nos.18618/
2003 to 1.862112003. ··
3. The short question which arises for determination in this
Civil Appeal concerns challenge to the Constitutional validity of
8 Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1998,
by which initially the rate of tax in respect of contract carriage
stood increased from Rs.1500/- per seat per quarter to Rs.2000/
- per seat. per qua.rter,· and subsequently the said rate stood
enhanced from Rs.2000/, per seat per quarter to Rs.3000/- per
C seat per quarter vide Notification No.1184 dated 30.11.2001
with effect from 1st December 2001. .. ·
- .
4. The basis of t~e, challenge rests on the uneven burden
placed· on the owners· of contract ·carriage vis-a-vis stage
carriage. Broadly it is contended that there is no rational in the
0
imposition of the levy, that tax is imposed indiscriminately,
that it is· levied to cross-subsidize~stage carriage and that
uneven burden has been placed ·on the owners of contract
carriage which has no nexus with the services or amenities
E provided.
5. Generally, in a matter of this nature, the quantifiable data
forms the basis of the challenge. At the initial stage when the
P.etition is_ filed in such cases there has got to be a precise ~
formulation of the ground of challenge from the side of the
F appellant based on some statistical ~ata as to disproportionality
of the rate of tax. It is only thereafter that the.burden will shift_on
to the State.to submit quantifiable and measurable data. ,_ .
~ 6. In the present case we find that the initial burden on the
appellant itself has not been discharged in the sense that the
G petitions filed before the High Court were very sketchy. A
challenge of-this nature requires the appellant to furnish greater ~·
details before the State c·ould be. called upon to submit
quantifiable and measurable data justifying the impugned rate.
Ultimately, it is the State which has to meet the allegations made
H in the writ petitions and if those allegations made in the writ
A.VENKATAKRISHNAN V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 871
AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
·'
~ -, petitions are vague, inaccurate or insufficient then it would not A
be possible for the State to submit its reply/data to the Court.
7 .. One more aspect in these cases also needs to be
mentioned. It has been argued before us that the tax in question
is a compensafory tax. Certain judgments of this Court are also
B
relied upon in this regard, the latest being the judgment in the
case of Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) and Another vs. State of
Haryana and Others ((2006) 7 SCC 241 ].
)'
8. In our view, this repeated increase in the rate' of tax,
particularly the incidence of which is more on the contract c
carriage vis-a-vis. stage carriage raises question of public
importance. At the same time the State can certainly rely upon
the data available to show cross subsidization, if it so exists in
a given case, by which stage carriage gets subsidized in public
interest. D
9. Keeping in mind the gamut of the dispute involved, we
are of the view that the impugned judgment of the High Court
cannot be interfered with, particularly when the pleadings at the
initial stage were insufficient.
E
10. Realizing this difficulty, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant fairly stated that he would seek permission
of this Court to withdraw the Civil Appeal with liberty to file proper
. writ petition in th.e High Court giving requisite details and
available data. Normally, we would not have granted such F
.·.
Mi · permission. However, as stated above, questions of public
importance arises in these matters, particularly in the context of
_. the principles of proportionality under Article 14 of the
Constitution and the later development of law as indicated by
this Court in the case of Jind9I Stainless Ltd. (Supra). G
j 11. In the circumstances we permit the appellant herein to
withdraw the Civil Appeal with liberty to file proper writ petition,
if so advised. We make it clear that we ~o not find any infirmity
in the impugned judgment of the High Court which is based on
H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A the petition originally filed by the petitioners. Subject to above. ,.- ,._,
Civil Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. We
make it clear that if a proper writ petition is filed giving requisite
data to the satisfaction of the High Court, then any observation
made in the impugned judgment will not come in the way of the
B appellant. All contentions of both sides are expressly kept open.
12. Similar order was passed in a group of cases i.e. Tamil
Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association v. State of Tamil Nadu &
Anr. ( i.e. Civil Appeal N_o.1177 of 2006 etc. disposed of on '(
28.11.2007).
c
13. Subject to the above, the Civil Appeal is dismissed
with no orders as to costs.

N.J. Appeal dismissed.