Jharkhand High Court Strikes Down Levy Of “Composition User Fee” On Vehicles Carrying Minerals Weighing Over 9 Tonnes

The Jharkhand High Court has struck down the levy of “Composition User Fee” (CUF) by the State Government on mechanical vehicles transporting minerals weighing more than 9 tons under the Jharkhand Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Amendment Rules, 2021 (2021 Rules) and its subsequent amendments, as unconstitutional and ultra vires the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 (Tolls Act).Subsequent amendments included amendments introduced by the Jharkhand Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Amendment Rules, 2022 (enhanced CUF) and the Jharkhand Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Amendment Rules, 2025 (doubled CUF to Rs.1200).For reference— CUF was a mandatory levy imposed by the State Government on vehicles carrying minerals above 9 tonnes, and was collected at the point of generating transit challans through the JIMMS portal. It was imposed irrespective of actual use of State roads by such vehicles, and the revenue so collected was used in the State exchequer for road construction and maintenance.Responding to a slew of petitions challenging the levy, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that the impugned Rules and subsequent amendments tried to create an unjustified class within a class by providing that mechanical vehicles carrying more than 9 tonnes of minerals were liable to pay CUF and other vehicles carrying other goods of same weight were exempted. In this regard, the Division Bench held,“We are of the view that the classification made by the respondent-State between mineral carrying vehicles and other vehicles has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by it. Thus, the impugned Rules and the subsequent amendments thereof to the extent of imposing the “Composition User Fee” is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”BACKGROUNDEntry No. 59 of List-II under VIIth Schedule of the Constitution specifies the subject “Tolls” on which the State Government is empowered to legislate. Section 2 of the Tolls Act— “it shall be lawful for the Government to cause such rates of toll, as it thinks fit, to be levied upon any road or bridge which has been or shall hereafter be made or repaired at the expense of the Government.”In light of these provisions, petitioners argued that CUF is in the nature of a compensatory tax, levied only for reimbursement of the amount spent by State on construction or maintenance of roads/bridges and the same cannot be levied as a source of State revenue on the pretext that construction and maintenance is a continuous process. It was further argued that the terms “shall hereafter be” in Section 2 does not empower State to indefinitely collect tax for road constructions. Additionally, petitioners contended that the State of Jharkhand is levying toll on mineral transportation and the charging event is not upon use of public roads and/or bridges. In several cases, mines were situated in remote areas with no public road and thus, levy of toll on mere generation of Transport Challan, was argued to be beyond the scope of Tolls Act. An arbitrary class within a class was also argued to be created by imposing CUF only on vehicles carrying minerals above 9 tonnes, which violated the equality clause in Article 14.On the contrary, the State defended the levy of CUF, stating that it possessed the requisite constitutional competence. Additionally, it was submitted that mineral-laden trucks moving in mineral belts caused massive degradation of roads which warranted regular maintenance.The Court thus had to determine whether levy of 'toll' in the name of “CUF on transportation of minerals through mechanical vehicles using State roads or commuting in mining areas, is beyond the scope of Section 2 of Tolls Act.Court's Findings:At the outset, the Court observed that CUF, as introduced by the 2021 Rules, was charged by the State by way of automatic deduction irrespective of whether connecting roads exist or not, or whether reconstruction or repair work is being undertaken or not. Thus, it observed,“By imposing toll in the nature of “Composition User Fee”, the State Government has not taken care of the fact as to whether the mineral carrying vehicle is actually using the toll road or not and thus the element of quid pro quo is missing in imposition of the “Composition User Fee”Explaining the difference between “toll” and “tax”, the Court noted,“The imposition of tax is made for public purpose to meet the general expense of the State without any special benefit to be conferred on the payer of tax and it is a part of common burden. On the other hand, toll is a recompense for use of a road or a part thereof by a user because it receives a special benefit of transporting or travelling on such roads constructed and maintained out of the funds of Central or State Government.”In light of this explanation, the Court stated,“'Toll' is not a tax, rather it is a compensatory fee which is chargeable...

Jharkhand High Court Strikes Down Levy Of “Composition User Fee” On Vehicles Carrying Minerals Weighing Over 9 Tonnes

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jharkhand High Court Strikes Down Levy Of “Composition User Fee” On Vehicles Carrying Minerals Weighing Over 9 Tonnes

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers