Read Time: 04 minutes
The petitioner contended that since consumers already pay a one-time tax under the U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997, imposing an additional fee at the toll plaza constitutes double taxation
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Vijay Pratap Singh, which challenged the validity of provisions of Part of Section 7 of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the mandatory implementation of FASTag lanes at toll plazas.
Advocate Singh traveled from Allahabad to Varanasi through NH-19 on June 3, 2024, in his car, which did not have a FASTag and crossed the Fee Plaza Handia, Allahabad, and on return from Varanasi he crossed the same Plaza. Though the rate fixed was Rs. 230, Advocate Singh was charged Rs. 230 with penalty for not having FASTag.
Through his PIL, Advocate Singh argued that charging a toll fee when road tax had already been paid under the U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997, amounted to double taxation. He further contended that the designation of all lanes at toll plazas as FASTag lanes was arbitrary and that the toll fees should be based on the value of the vehicle rather than its type.
However, the bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar, found that the petition lacked merit.
Court clarified that the toll fees are imposed under Section 8(A) of the National Highways Act, which allows the central government to collect fees for services related to highway maintenance and development. It also noted that the FASTag policy was implemented to promote digital payments and reduce congestion at toll plazas.
Court rejected the petitioner's argument of double taxation, stating that road tax and toll fees are governed by separate legislations and serve different purposes. Court also dismissed the suggestion to base toll fees on the value of vehicles as contrary to existing rules.
Concluding that no public interest was involved in the petition, the court dismissed the case, emphasizing that the petitioner had simply chosen not to install a FASTag, which resulted in him paying a higher fee as per the established rules.
Advocate Arun Mishra appeared for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents, Additional Solicitor General of India (A.S.G.I.) and Advocate Pranjal Mehrotra, for the NHAI, defended the government’s position.
Case Title: Vijay Pratap Singh v. Union Of India And Another
Please Login or Register
