New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Tuesday resolved a slew of pleas attacking the legality of different state governments collecting clearance fee/border taxes and gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional high courts for relief.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the verdict on pleas filed by several transporters and tour operators who said clearance fee/border tax was being collected in alleged violation of the Tourist Vehicle (Permit) Rules. all India 2023.
Some of the petitioners also asked for the return of such taxes already made by the states.
"With the state laws, rules and regulations not being questioned, it cannot be said that the demand for border taxes/clearance fees at the borders by the respective state governments is wrong in law. The petitioners, to succeed, should consider challenging the state provision contained in the Act," the court said.
"There is another reason why we do not consider the issues on merit is that the petitioners should have first approached their jurisdictional high courts to challenge their respective state laws," he said.
The court resolved the petitions without interfering with the claims raised by the states. The top court made it clear that it has not gone into the merits of the matter or examined it.
He said the tax already recovered would be subject to the final outcome of petitions that may be filed in the higher courts.
The court noted that while notices on these matters were issued earlier, interim relief was granted and states were restrained from making any further payment of border clearance tax/fee.
"Although the lawyers for the parties have raised their arguments on the merits, we are not prepared to go into the merits of the matter at this stage since, apparently, the fundamental question to be decided would be whether the collection and realization of taxes by the respective states is covered by the Act and Rules made by the respective states under Entries 56 and 57 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution," he said.
The court said: "So far as the period of interim order passed by this court is concerned, the petitioners would give an undertaking before the higher courts that in case of failure, they will fulfill the demands that would have been raised during the period under which "enjoyed the stay."
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the verdict on pleas filed by several transporters and tour operators who said clearance fee/border tax was being collected in alleged violation of the Tourist Vehicle (Permit) Rules. all India 2023.
Some of the petitioners also asked for the return of such taxes already made by the states.
"With the state laws, rules and regulations not being questioned, it cannot be said that the demand for border taxes/clearance fees at the borders by the respective state governments is wrong in law. The petitioners, to succeed, should consider challenging the state provision contained in the Act," the court said.
"There is another reason why we do not consider the issues on merit is that the petitioners should have first approached their jurisdictional high courts to challenge their respective state laws," he said.
The court resolved the petitions without interfering with the claims raised by the states. The top court made it clear that it has not gone into the merits of the matter or examined it.
He said the tax already recovered would be subject to the final outcome of petitions that may be filed in the higher courts.
The court noted that while notices on these matters were issued earlier, interim relief was granted and states were restrained from making any further payment of border clearance tax/fee.
"Although the lawyers for the parties have raised their arguments on the merits, we are not prepared to go into the merits of the matter at this stage since, apparently, the fundamental question to be decided would be whether the collection and realization of taxes by the respective states is covered by the Act and Rules made by the respective states under Entries 56 and 57 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution," he said.
The court said: "So far as the period of interim order passed by this court is concerned, the petitioners would give an undertaking before the higher courts that in case of failure, they will fulfill the demands that would have been raised during the period under which "enjoyed the stay."
