Summary
Challenges by tourist-vehicle operators to State border taxes and authorisation fees were disposed of with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Courts. The relevant State enactments and rules had not been challenged, and the Supreme Court declined to decide the competing tax claims on merits. Recoveries remain subject to the High Court proceedings, with undertakings required for demands covering the period of interim protection.
Issues
- Whether the State demands could be invalidated without challenging the State provisions invoked to support them.
- Which forum should first examine the challenge and how interim-period liabilities should be treated.
Provisions considered
- Articles 32 and 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court declined merits adjudication under Article 32 and left petitioners to challenge the respective State enactments before the jurisdictional High Courts under Article 226. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Seventh Schedule, List II, Entries 56 and 57, Constitution of IndiaStates invoked these entries to defend their tax laws. Whether the demands were covered by those enactments remained a foundational question for properly framed High Court challenges, not a question decided on merits here. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10)
Held
- The operators’ challenge relied on the All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023, while the States defended their demands under their own enactments and rules. Without a challenge to those State provisions, the demands could not be pronounced unlawful in these proceedings. Petitioners should first approach the jurisdictional High Courts. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10)
- The petitions were disposed of without interference with the State demands and with liberty to seek relief before the High Courts. The Supreme Court expressly left the merits unexamined, including the rival claims concerning the central permit regime and State taxing authority. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
- Tax already recovered will abide the final outcome of any High Court petitions. For periods covered by the Supreme Court’s interim restraint, petitioners must undertake before the High Courts to make good the demands that would have arisen if their challenges fail. (¶¶ 6, 12)
- The four contempt petitions forming part of the batch were de-tagged for separate listing rather than decided with the tax challenges. (¶ 1)
Result
Writ petitions disposed of with liberty to approach jurisdictional High Courts; merits left open. Recoveries and interim-period undertakings governed by paragraph 12. Four contempt petitions de-tagged for separate listing.