The appeal is a 117 petitions, primarily filed by transporters and tour operators, challenging the imposition of Border Tax/Authorization Fee by various State Governments despite the introduction of the All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023, which aimed to eliminate such fees. The Supreme Court of India refrained from ruling on the merits of the case, suggesting that petitioners approach the respective High Courts to challenge State enactments. The interim relief granted earlier restraining State Governments from collecting the fees remains, and any taxes already collected will depend on the outcomes of future High Court petitions.

1. Introduction

   • 117 petitions filed under Article 32 challenging State Governments' levy of Border Tax/Authorization Fee against the Rules, 2023.
   • Common relief sought is the cessation of Border Tax/Authorization Fee collection.

2. Challenge to Previous Rules and Refund Claims

   • Some petitions also challenged the Rules, 2021 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
   • Reliefs amended to align with the Rules, 2023, including refund claims for taxes already collected.

3. States Involved and Notices Issued

   • Initially targeted at Tamil Nadu, later included other States.
   • Notices issued to multiple States regarding the levy.

4. Purpose of the Rules, 2023

   • Rules, 2023 replaced the Rules, 2021 to ensure seamless vehicle movement and equitable revenue sharing between Centre and States.

5. Petitioners’ Complaints

   • Allegations of harassment and double taxation at State borders.
   • Legal challenges based on lack of authority and violation of the Rules, 2023.

6. Interim Relief Granted

   • Interim relief restraining States from further tax collection was granted while issuing notices.

7. States' Defense

   • States claimed authority under Entries 56 & 57 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution.
   • Asserted petitioners should have approached High Courts under Article 226 instead of the Supreme Court under Article 32.

8. States' Submission on Petitioners' Grievance

   • States argued that without challenging State Acts/Rules, petitions should be dismissed.

9. Fundamental Question and Jurisdiction

   • Supreme Court refrained from merit-based decisions, focusing on the need to challenge State provisions under Entries 56 & 57.

10. Lack of Challenge to State Enactments

    • Demand for Border Tax/Authorization Fee not deemed unlawful without challenging State enactments.
    • Petitioners advised to approach High Courts for relief.

11. Disposal of Petitions and Liberty to Approach High Courts

    • Petitions disposed of with the option for petitioners to approach jurisdictional High Courts.
    • Supreme Court did not examine merits.

12. Recovery of Taxes and Interim Orders

    • Taxes already collected subject to High Court outcomes.
    • Petitioners must provide undertakings to High Courts regarding future tax demands if the stay is lifted.