JUDGMENT
R.K. Abichandani, J.
1. The petitioners have challenged validity of the Navsari Municipality Token Tax Rules, which have been framed under Section 271 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (here-in-after referred to as “the said Act”).
According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1, Association of Transport Operators for the city of Navsari is formed to look after and protect the interests of its members. It is contended that the procedure required to be followed for framing such rules for imposing token tax was not followed by the respondent-Municipality. It is also contended that Section 271 of the said Act does not envisage levying of such a token tax. Moreover, imposition of token tax under the impugned Rules amounted to double taxation in view of the fact that the petitioners were already paying road tax and other taxes to the Municipality and that even octroi was paid on the goods which were brought in such vehicles. It is stated that there are about 4,000 loading rickshaws and 600 large vehicles including heavy motor trucks which are registered within the limits of the respondent-Municipality and therefore, the Municipality has no right, whatsoever to charge token tax from the owners of such vehicles.
2. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent-Municipality, it is brought on record that the proper procedure for framing of such Rules was observed and sanction under Section 102(4) was also obtained in respect of these Rules. The notice inviting objections was widely circulated by publication in three Newspapers and it was also published at nine places including at the office of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the objections were considered before the final resolution was passed.
3. The impugned Rules impose a token tax which is payable by the goods vehicles which pass through the Municipal area of the respondent- Municipality. Rule 3 provides that the Rules would be applicable to the goods vehicles entering the Municipal limits. Rule 4 of these Rules which prescibes rates of taxes provides that a rate of Rupees 2 for three wheelers and Rupees 5 for the vehicles having four or more wheels would be charged from such vehicles which pass through the Municipal area. Rule 5 provides for obtaining two copies of the receipt showing payment of token tax and one of these copies is required to be handed over at the Octroi check-post which comes before crossing the Municipal limits.
4. Section 99 of the said Act enumerates taxes which may be imposed by a Municipality. The procedure preliminary to imposing a tax which is required to be followed by a Municipality is laid down under Section 101 of the said Act. Accordingly, a Municipality is required to, by a resolution passed at its General Meeting, select any taxes which it proposes to levy from those specified in Section 99 and approve Rules prepared for the purpose of Clause (1) of Section 271(1) of the said Act prescribing the tax selected. The approved Rules are required to be published and under Clause (c) of Section 101, objections are to be invited and considered and the matter is to be submitted to the State Government. Section 102 empowers the State Government to sanction or refuse to sanction the Rules submitted under Section 101 or to send them back for further consideration or to sanction them with modifications not involving an increase in the amount to be imposed. Rules so sanctioned are to be published as required by Section 103 of the said Act. Section 271 of the said Act confers rule-making powers on the Municipality and under Clause (1), rules not inconsistent with the Act or Rules or Orders made by the State Government under the Act prescribing taxes to be levied in the Municipal Borough can be framed by the Municipality. Therefore, on the plain reading of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that a Municipality can impose taxes, by following the prescribed procedure, on any of the matters which are enumerated in Section 99 of the said Act. The State is empowered to make laws with respect to taxes on vehicles under Entry 57 and Tolls under Entry 59 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
5. Under Section 99(1)(ii) of the Act, a Municipality may inter alia, impose a tax on all vehicles, kept for use within the Municipal Borough, whether they are actually kept within or outside the said Borough. Therefore, a tax can be imposed on vehicles which are kept for use within the Borough and accordingly the Municipality recovers taxes on vehicles which are registered within the Municipal Borough. Under Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 99, a Municipality may also inter alia impose a toll on vehicles entering the Borough, but not liable to taxation under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 99. It is, therefore, clear that the toll on vehicles which can be imposed under Clause (iii) is different from a tax on vehicles which can be imposed under Clause (ii) of Section 99(1).
6. On the combined reading of the Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the impugned Rules, it is clear that the token tax which is sought to be imposed is on vehicles which pass through the Borough and are not liable to taxation under Clause (ii) of Section 99(1). The token tax which is sought to be imposed under these Rules is clearly a toll on vehicles imposed under Clause (iii) of Section 99(1). Toll is a sum of money for the use of something, generally applied to the consideration which is paid for the use of a road, highway, bridge, or the like, of a public nature. It is the sum of money taken in respect of some benefits being temporary use of the land as for example, fair or market toll, toll thorough, toll traverse, anchorage toll and harbour toll. ‘Toll thorough’ is a toll for passing along a public highway, whether the highway may be a road, a river, a ferry, a bridge or the sea. In the context of Section 99(1)(iii) toll used in the sense of toll thorough in respect of vehicles and animals entering the Borough but which are not liable to taxation under Clause (ii) of Section 99(1). These vehicles be necessarily vehicles which are not kept for use within the Borough as contemplated by Clause (ii) of Section 99(1). Therefore, the area of operation of Clause (iii) of Section 99(1) under which the impugned Rules are framed being different from that of Clause (ii) of Section 99(1), it cannot be said that there is double taxation imposed by the Municipality by framing the impugned Rules.
7. The contention raised in the petition that because octroi is paid on vehicles, recovery of token tax under the impugned Rule would amount to double taxation is also devoid of any substance for the simple reason that octroi on goods is altogether a different head under which a tax can be imposed by the Municipality under Section 99(1)(iv) which the State Legislature is empowered to enact by virtue of its legislative competence derived from Entry 52 of the State List.
8. As noted above, material has been brought on record to show that proper procedure has been followed before framing the impugned Rules. It is also clear that the Municipality was empowered to impose such token tax which is in the nature of toll on vehicles falling in Clause (iii) of Section 99(1) altogether different from tax on vehicles covered by Clause (ii) thereof. These Rules would obviously not apply to vehicles which are liable to taxation under Clause (ii) of Section 99(1) of the said Act. Therefore, if the petitioners were paying taxes under Clause (ii) of Section 99(1) in respect of vehicles which were kept for use within the Municipal Borough, the Municipality could not have recovered a toll on such vehicles under the impugned Rules.
In the above view of the matter, the challenge against the impugned Rules fails. The petition is, therefore rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
9. It was contended that the Respondent Municipality should be directed to (refund the token tax paid by the petitioners who have paid the road tax under Clause (ii) of Section 99(1). There are no particulars on record regarding such payments nor is any relief claimed in the petition for refund. If there has been any recovery de hors the impugned Rules by the Municipality, the petitioners may make suitable claim for refund from the Municipality but that relief cannot be granted in the present petition.