Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 275 (JK)

Ravinder Sood v. State

2019-05-16

RAJESH BINDAL, SINDHU SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAJESH BINDAL, J. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging SRO No. 112 of 2007 dated 30.03.2007 fixing the toll tax to be charged on the different category of vehicles being discriminatory. Further prayer has been made to charge the toll tax at same rates at different places. Prayer has also been made to assess and refund the excess charged toll tax in the event of quashing of SRO No.112 of 2007 dated 30.03.2007. 2. The petitioner claims that he is carrying on business of carrying and forwarding agent of the Ambuja Cement. Trucks were hired by him from Kathua for loading of cement bags from Govindsar Railway Station. The toll tax is charged from the petitioner twice on passing through the Govindsar toll post, i.e., while coming and going. It has further been pleaded that rate of toll tax fixed at different toll tax posts is different, hence, the same is discriminatory. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the prayer made in the present petition has been rendered infructuous as SRO No. 112 of 2007 dated 30.03.2007 has been amended number of times after its issuance in last more than one decade. He further submitted that the present petition otherwise deserves to be dismissed as it is lacking in basic facts. No supporting documents have been annexed to show that which toll post was crossed by any of the vehicles and the toll tax was charged beyond what was permissible in terms of the notification. Different rates of toll tax have been fixed at different posts keeping in view the user of the State road, the bridges and the ferry. Even otherwise the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the rates of tax, once the power to levy tax as such is not in dispute. It is within the domain of the State to prescribe the rates. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present petition. 5. It would be apt to reproduce Section 3(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Tolls Act, Svt. 1995 hereunder. “3. It is within the domain of the State to prescribe the rates. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present petition. 5. It would be apt to reproduce Section 3(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Tolls Act, Svt. 1995 hereunder. “3. Rate of Tolls to be levied.- (1) The government may from time to time prescribe, annual or alter rates of tolls to be levied upon any road, ferry or bridge (in the State in respect of men, animals, vehicles, machinery, commodities and goods in any form whatsoever) and may place the collection of such tolls under such management as may appear to it proper, and all persons employed in the management and collection of such tolls shall be liable to the same responsibilities as would belong to them if employed in the collection of the (Excise) Revenue under the Jammu and Kashmir (Excise) Revenue under the Jammu and Kashmir (Excise) Act, 1958.” 6. In exercise of powers conferred therein vide SRO No. 112 dated 30.03.2007, the State had prescribed rates of toll tax for different toll posts keeping in view the category of vehicles. Once the power to levy the toll tax as such is not in dispute, it will not be within the domain of this Court to enter into the arena of rates of tax as for levy of tax principle of quid pro quo is not applicable. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the amount of tax levied is confiscatory to substantiate the plea that the tax has been charged twice or the same is not in inconformity with the provisions of the Act or the notification issued. 7. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed.