Karnataka High Court
Rajashree Cement vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 May, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COu'RT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 24"' DAY OF MAY, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK 8. HINCNIG'-E:RIi,"t~.:
WRIT PETITION No.16188/2005('T-AMVT)-:< 1
C/w WRIT PETITION Nos.165O7;f2Qi)7;C»._ "
8738/2088 and 8739/20o8v..
W.P.N0.161§8[O7:
BETWEEN:
Rajashree Cement, .. VT
Aditya Nagar, _
Malkhed Road, 3
Gulbarga Distriiiciti,'
Karnataka -- A -- .
A unit of M/s. Grasim Indu"strie_sE'C'L,td._.,
Represented by its - ' ' . '
Senior Vice President"(HRV)
Sri_P.K. Jain. E' A. Petitioner
Pramod N. Kathavi, AGA)
AND:
V .V _ TheE"Stat.e of tkarnataka,
<.,Depart~me:r2t of Transport
W .I,SeChivaEaya--II,
"«.VE\1.,S."Bui|dings,
B.an'g'aiore --~ 560 001.
By its Secretary.
The Deputy Commissioner of Transport,
Gulbarga District,
Guibarga -~ 585 101.
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Gulbarga District,
Guibarga ---- 585 101.
(By Sri M. Kumar, AGA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and"~?,27f_iof'the~.[
Constitution of India praying to quash theorder dated"-19..9';~2O.0?.,V
vide Annexure--A passed by the second;respo'n.de_nt:'by"'holding "
that the same is wholly iliegal, arbitra:ry,;"'unjust, "w'hirn3irca'i',1.h_'
of mind, capricious,, ' 'witii=o'ut V
jurisdiction and vioiative of Artic|es"1_4'-and 1'9 (3.)(g'}_ air{i_d«-i.2,65 of
passed without application
the Constitution of India; and etc.
i W.P.No.16507[07,
BETWEEN:
M/s. Kesoram Industries' i;.i.mi'r;ed,:.l
Having its Manufact,u.ringi'lu,_riit '
M/s. Vasavadatta iCeirient'','''~.._ ,
Lakshminarayana .Na'gTar__.__ , _
Sedam, Ta|ul<':r_Seda'm_, ' '
District: Guibarga,' ,
Karnataka ---- 585 2-92.» _ V
Represented' by its Jo.int"P'resi'dent,
.....
Pramod N. Katthavi, AGA)
. Thellétat-e.o'F"i{arnataka,
.. '~..jDepart"rrie1-nt of Transport
" ii.uSach4iva|aya--II,
V"-E_Vi~_.S. Buiidings,
_ Bwangalore -~ 560 001.
Bx} its Secretary.
The Deputy Commissioner of Transport,
Guibarga District,
Gulbarga - 585 101.
Respon-dents
Petitioner
-- »»x_-i.......;.m....-.w,,.a..i>.-.,,.. ...-. ...w.
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Gtiibarga District,
Gulbarga ----- 585 101.
.. . Re,s.p_o nd erits " ,.
(By Sri M. Kurnar, AGA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226':«':_1ni3 '2_27. of"the"1
Constitution of India praying to call for 'the1'_rec'ords_ of"the.."ca,sf'e.s_'
pertaining to the appeal filed by the petit-i.oi*ier bea.r,ih'g' f\lo.=Tax
Appeal 32-36/07 filed before the _2"-'.3, respondent Qiuash -tithe --. "
order dated 3.5.2008 (Annexure--A)'pValssed by,_t'he-1R2, in Tax
Appeai No.32---3t3,'{}7 by holding thai:_.._th'e__sa:_fne is'-«i,n;hoil}é illegal,
arbitrary, unjust, whimsical,v;3as_sed'iwithout application of mind,
capricious, without jurisdictiorfand viol3vative--o"f.,Artic!es 14 and 19
(nit)("g)~and"~*26~5r"of*the*€onstitutiorrfof"india;i'ra'ridje,t_i:; '
W.P.No.8739[O8:
BETWEEN: 4'" 0
Rajashree Cement;ti_, 7'; '
Aditya Nagar',., ' " '
Malkhed Road,-
Gulbarga DistriC't,.__ ' _ _
Karnataka _~-- .585 292.
Rep,resente,d by its ' g ,
Senior Vi'C--e'Prfesident (HR')"""
st'i:i_>.:<;'J--a_,in._, » Petitioner
Prarnod N. Kathavi, AGA)
V'7__A|\EDV:
.1 'ig,T'l1ie-.State of Karnataka,
" _Depa,rtment of Transport
Sachivalaya--I1,
Buildings,
"Bangalore ----- 560 001.
By its Secretary.
S
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Transport,
Gulbarga District,
Gulbarga -~ 585 101.
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Gulbarga District,
Gulbarga -- 585 101.
R.E?S'DQ'f'ld'§:'TitS'
(By Sri M. Kumar, AGA) T
This writ petition is filed under Aaftic!es'226_
Constitution of India praying to call for'i'the7.Are'cordS _,o'i'»trie
bearing No.Tax Appeal 30-31/07'iV_fi«:..c_;.rj buy-the,petition«e.r,,,before."
the 2"" respondent. Quash the ordevrdhatepd (}'-,\nne><ure-
A) passed by the R2 in 'E"a>:'"Appeal"'NoV..30V§'3.1/O7 by/holding that
the same is wholly illegal, Harhb..i'trary}Viisngiispyiiwhimsical, passed
without application of.mindfgaP.l-iciogg,ywithiotitfijurisdiction and
violative ofiArti_cleAsi5i§i.._a:n.d '1..:9""(..1)€9."} and 265 of the Constitution
of Endia; andFetc--.
These writ hipetitions haying been heard and reserved for
:.o'rVde.rs t';iefor.ei.Gulbarga'Ci'rcuit Bench on 18.12.2009, coming on
for,'i9,ro'ii--~oimcern<erit-._of Orders' before the Principal Bench at
Bang§a.Ior.e'this'V"_dayy;,.'the Court made the following:
6
ORDER
The petitioners have raised the challenge to th;egTo-rders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 demandingwthie:'__'t:a;<,""in respect of the dumpers, shovels, forkiift, pay |oad_e';rs,. cranesl and,'V' excavators (hereinafter coiiectiveiy referred' ~td«_,a's for short). The petitioners have also clalleid into.Iiyquestio'n"'thVei.e consequent demand notices for theV"i'p.ay'mentV'of_tax'-ion':vE.M.E.s.
2. The learned coun's'e,|-.fo_r_ftheu"'pet.i,tiioners, Sri Prarnod Kathavi submittedéthat motor vehicles adapted for use ifjtoi thewilearneci counsel, the
--question thie4VV'ta§§"«.underuuéection 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles 'Taxatvilorij#iC't,:il"1«9V57 ('1957 Act' for short) would arise only _when"'thVe~n5.'--oto'r vehicles are suitable for use on the 1-Vfroads. "V---The."stiirn.ension"and weight of the E.M.E.s are such that they on the public roads at all. Their overal! '"dimens.ions the outer iimits, prescribed by Ruie 93 of the "-«T.-Ti,»-V'Ce'ntrai Mo.t__or Vehicies Rules, 1989, for a motor vehicie. This it that the E.M.E.s are not the motor vehicles as per the 7E"'dlefin_iition contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('1988 Act' short). They are being used for mining purposes within the I93}-L project area or factory premises. Even if they are to be repaired, it is being done only in the petitioners';'~p_:rii.i_ate premises.
3. Sri Kathavi reads out the definitiionhiof §moto'Ar- 'vehicle' contained in Section 2{2_8) to-f""1988?y'.lact;' corresponds to Section 2(18) of thea».cVlViotor l5lct,VVV1939 ['1939 Act' for short]). It rea:dsy_as V ".2(28). "motor vehicle" any mechanically propelled adapted use upon roads whether'-.. weryo-f_pro--piglsion' transmitted thereto from e}€l%er_n"alj_i yo"r'"i'nternal source and includeshtahv "chassis:7fyto f"wh'ich Aaibody has not been attached and av'tréf'f~l:§'VF;s.V4l5'ut"does not include a vehicle running opon»fh<e~dV iailsruorpyhhafvehicle of a special type adapted forflise'Vonly'*.in":a factory or in any other
-'W,__encldeedfipremisies-roisa vehicle having less than four vi/lieei's_Vh'Alittedr.,.withIengine capacity of not exceeding A '---tvv<enty~fvlv':=; centimetres. "
V -V 4. a--lso"b;r§ngs to my notice, Section 3(1) of the 1957 .1 rswhicsh reads as follows:
_V A Levy of tax.» (1) A tax at the rates specified in it ...Part A of the Schedule shall be levied on all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads: "
5. It is the further submission of Sri Kathavi that when__the provisions for taxing contained in Section 3(1) of the and the definition of the 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' ~ Section 2(28) of 1988 Act are read toge_th.er,4 it_-bVec'orn;Ves"'icl'ear=-_ that only such of the vehicles, which are a'_diaptaiible'* used on the Dubiic roads, become |iai?_,'.bI0
6. It is Sri Kathavrs grievanceAthateneither.theresifiondent No.2 nor the respondent No.3" have__heIj.du"anfy:'e*n_quiry into the usability of E.M.E.s onypuyyblic ;roa'dfi.:: ieviable only on the vehicles, i:vhi'chTa:'i:e public roads. There is absolutely the heavy vehicles in question owned are being plied on the public roa'd's..,_ Pu:ylj;i.ic;y_'._have no""rig.ht~'to access the mining area or the factory are*a,_ is--.not a public place, road, street, way or an,,,£.h.Qroughfa'r'e. iTiie__trax on motor vehicles is compensatory tax _V%_levi4ed.__for the~.u's;.e of the road. because E.M.E.s are registered with the transport aiuthorioes, they do not become liable for taxation automatically. 'registration of E.M.E.s is made compulsory only for ensuring 1332!.
9 safety of passengers and goods, as per Section 39 of 1988 Act, so submits Sri Kathavi.
8. Sri Kathavi sought to draw support from"thei~iohib1e.':' M Supreme Court's judgment in the caseiof.
LIMITED v. STATE OF ORISSA reported.__iri:_l\IR@975 to buttress his submission that if a m;o'i:or vehicle'.is",us"ed'"soieiy V upon the premises of the owrier, it gwo'uA!d'nVo't..attract"'theV4 liability to tax. The relevant paragraphslli-oi':'the:ll'-sia~i.d"judgment are extracted hereinbeioiwzug ".29. it-sgulatory measure imposing"Compensatory 'taxes "for"'th-egpurpose of raising revenue to eXpendi"ture for making roads, maintaining "then; to-r:'."fd't:iii'tating the movement and reguiation 'of_ifrath'c§'~~--"ihe validity of the taxing Q' povvei; under Entry .5_Z,__List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution depends upon the e.réggulatory..:andcojrnpensatory nature of the taxes. It is notg'theip«ui;p'jeseV of the Taxation Act to levy taxes on
--V vehicles do not use the roads or in any way form Vlpart ofzthe flow of traffic on the roads which is required regulated. The regulations under the Motor _' ii/'ehicwles Act for registration and prohibition of certain '*'c'ategories of vehicles being driven by persons who V' have no driving iicence, even though those vehicles are not plying on the roads, are designed to ensure the QHH.
safety of passengers and goods etc. etc. and for that ._ purpose it is enacted to keep control and check on the-'i",_ vehicles. Legislative power under Entry 35 of (Concurrent List) does not bar such a provision-,'::'-- ht". Entry 5? of List II is subject to the lirnitations'referred: ' to above, namely, that the thereunder cannot exceed the cornpeii-satory"na'ture V' which must have some nexustvvith the'i-veiticlea"using the roads, viz. public roads. If then!/ehVicles"do: not use the roads, notwithstanding th'at"_tl§eyV""ate registered under the Act, they cannotlbe "_ _
37. From the~,.very natufre',.'oF«.th'e.jfareaij'operated by these three 'obvious V thatmthe machines which are the. appeals must be worl<ing"inwtheii}respiectifve..:n7i'ningV'areas. The mere fact that there no: 'barbed wire around, the leasehold prernises is"no»t:co.nclusive. There is evidence to Sh;u"v'«' ggthatx the 'public are not allowed to go inside «_Awitneo'ut;g_priovrA perrnis's-ion, there are gates and a check iognfingressi '«and___egress is kept by guards who also "L°.nsu__re iiovyunauthorised persons have access to the»..u_vminin'g"3;.-area, all of which indicate that the respective rnining areas are enclosed premises within g:ti:es..n7eaning of the exceptions under Section 2 (C) of 'the. Taxation Act.
'"9. The learned courasei has also relied on this Court's 4"'~Vl_Vd'ét§asion in the case of R. PAMPAPATHI v. SENIOR HEM ii INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES, RTO, HOSPET reported in ILR 1996 KAR 3480, wherein it is held that no tax can be levied on the loader, if it is not intended to be used on roads. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment.--Ais*-- ' hereirabelow:
".18. In view of the said Drono'L'nceiT?'ent'§'..C§'i*.,--t§ll'3¢;
Supreme Court, it has to be helt:'.._that "then :4/orcl';"rOads_V'V used in Entry 5 7 of the State to be~un"a'eVrstt5odVV as 'i0kiblic roads', meanirig the're.?:?:l" that the"-State Legislatures can enact la'is.isgfor.gle§/yi vehicles which are suitablefor use ro.ads; :fa--hVd further that such vehicles; fact.'been"p_utV'use on such public roads.- "'C'on§e.cg;iienti_}<___it..ha's beheld that it will be beyondthe'7t:onj,tiete'nce.._pfthe State Legislature to provide ix'-for-. vehicles which are dominantlv"sa_clapted_ ufor" in places other than on publigcjlroads, ahcl._V_Vi'f'the: same are not in fact used on pubhc' treads)"
'iCl:.".-._Th'e'éV'i_"_vipe"t§i't'i'oners' further grievance is that the trespondenat passed the impugned order after receiving .1 transfer.
Per contra, Sri M. Kumar, the learned AGA submits fl_A"'th.a:t"the petitioners' E.M.E,s fall within the definition of 'motor 'vehicles' as defined in Section 2(18) of the 1939 Act and 2(28) 8891 of the 1988 Act. He submits that they are fitted with rubber tubes.
12. sri Kumar brings to my notice that the has issued a notification, dated 8.5.1980»..(Anne$k'ure;.ij}Vt'o,'_'_the-,_ writ petition) in exercise of the power:.gco'niferred_ 16(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Ta}<at'ioV'n the tax payable in respect of,dumpe_rs:'"rock_ersyh's'ho,yAelsi§ subject to certain conditions. He fVu'rth.er_the petitioners have been complyinc_i_:"w_ith s:t'i;pu'.lated therein. However, the dated 7.12.2000 (Annexure--Ei"to" :"'p.eti'tion.)';""'rescinding the earlier notification, when the exemption is withdrawnptvheinp'eti'_tione_rsA':_are":liable to pay the tax on the ;_p:etii_t.iohe'rs'"----ha've not challenged the notification, dated_'_7'.i2;2Qd_Qi,:.w.i:tridrawing the exemption. The learned AGA :i."i"ii.further though the petitioners have been filing a of writ petitions, they have not challenged the '1._'caovér';iaaéri_t notification dated 7.12.2oo'o, withdrawing the
-V:ex.en9aptl%0n granted eariier. He further submits that the 'oicV4:"'op.e_tii:ioners have not prayed for a writ of mandamus to the RSH.
Government to issue the notification granting exemption from the' payment of tax on their vehicles in question. :13. The iearned AGA brings to my notice contained in Section 4 of the 1957 Act, wvhiichieads as.tf:c'>'i!.ov\fs*:7«' " 4._Payment of tax.- ( -The tax'Vfavi'e¢iV"iu]ijtie_r section 3 shall be paid in advai7»oe»by thei._reg-Estered owner or person having:._oosse3sion_:'-or"-control'"of the motor vehicle, for a quartér,., haff?§y:i3a't"i%giQf.',year, at his choice, within fifteen days. comrneljjcement of such quarter, haif=-«year, ifeai' a's.A«tne_'~.ca'stéj'n7ay be. "
14. Based on provisions of iaw, he submits that ljevyof 3 of the 1957 Act takes place at eair'ii'est Vo'f."tina'e.Av:The levy of tax takes place at a IEj',;i:')'(B:"'t,i~~!i(;":i' eveflntiin respect of the vehicle occurs.
is actuailyused or not on the road T";rsvu'bseque'n.tiY,,.__'ti:e'ftaix is payabie in advance. Liabitity to pay the niotaget extinguished on the. happenings of any ._:"subseque--n.t" event.
35. He further submits that during the manufacturing process of a motor vehicie at some particular point of time, the 09311'.
motor vehicle becomes suitataie for use on the roads. ___The taxable event can be said to have Occurred at that point
16. The iearned AGA submits that the law laid it cases of Boiani and Pampapathi (supvra")h'd'oeg..A'not any Eonger in view of the judgment of theixpex Court"_i'in' the of CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, 2LAgeA~nmiHlstméitixitiigno omens v. STATE or 0R.E:S~$A Ahaiigiibpojfneéiteparted in (1.995) 10 sec 676. In theiisaidhcaiseiv, vAi3:'if§ij_'{i_.ment that the dumpers are not upon the roads and are therefore t'héj,§-:itA'Vs'e.o':pe""-;:of--taxation statute is negatived. said judgment are extracted hereinbetowr _ ,Accordi'n'g' toV'Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned ' it "'-Senior C;-'o:un"sel, sinicethe dimension of the dumpers in LVque'stioh._excee'd----the permissible dimensions under the iafoihesaivd"l{'trles}"there is an embargo for the dumpers to be usedpn public roads and as such, the vehicle '*._cannot"_be taxed under the Taxation Act. We are "..fl.unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the '_'_t~__'s.ubn':ission of the learned Senior Counsel for the _»p_eti'tioner. The crux of the question is whether the dumper is a motor vehicle and whether the vehicle attracts liability of tax under Section 3 of the Taxation REM Act? The very question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Central Coal Fields Ltd:
v. State of Orissa wherein the various provisions Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was ..'urider"'5f" C"
consideration and the vehicles whichmhad been i under the Taxation Act in the said case and rockers. This Court after tracing the legisiatiyve "
history and the decisions of Court Vcomrrzeriicinvgggg from Bolani Ores Ltd v. State"~«_of _VOrissa Lrepelled argument of the mineoyvners vvh.o'_us-ed jdu_mpersV'wlthin their mining premises to'th_e th'at_rrthe.Vdumpers are vehicles not-.avdapte'd"v»for and, therefore, are ythgeisfiope' of:-'the.....laxation Act and held that tyres, in marked contrast. to _"ci'~2ain'1--1:plates' «cagterpillars or military tanks. wassVa'.lgg.tg_h:eld the use of rubber tyres it is eviden[~. thatgyytifieysssiiasve.been adapted for use on roads, which-._means_they'are suitable for being used on pub,li;{':' roads andsison the mere fact that they are ""'reg.uired"latplaces tomrun at a particular speed is not to detract:'frolm"the--..position otherwise clear that they are adapted' use' on roads. The very nature of these veh'icles__"mal<'°e it clear that they are not manufactured or adapted for use only in factories or enclosed A ,orernises. The mere fact that the dumpers or rockers "asssuggested are heavy and cannot move on the roads ....without damaging them is not to say that they are not suitable for use on roads. The word 'adapted' in the provision was read as 'suitable' in Bolani Ores case by 6811 -
I6 interpretation on the strength of the language in Entry 5? List II of the Constitution. On the fact--situation, therefore, it must be held that dumpers and rocl<ersL~..4_"t~.
are vehicles adapted or suitable for use on roads;a--.*.1da..__'__t"I' being motor vehicles per se, were liable to taxatioiv one the footing of their use or kept for us_e..on__pub;ic"roa{s. h
9. On these facts it is difficult for its ihold:that--.theV vehicles are not adapted or sui'tabl.e or capable being used on public roads, even though most tinge they might actually be within rhining ar'e'as*on the roads prepared by ihes~hmin.ipg'o§in§.--S'_'~ Following the two earlier judgments...of_thisv._Cogurt"inV(fentral Coal Fields Ltd. and.Ui?'ion~of Co. we hold that 'ii:.._que.stidn«f3re_ motor vehicles and are'ta§rable:rg5with'inVV'th:e'»a:n7bithofthe Taxation Act."
17. The learnhed vl5\Gl5\'.'aE'so_"..'tbrings to my notice the Hon'b|e Aptcxgcouieg jvuidgment'-iVnVVt_h_e. case of STATE or GUJARAT AND oi'H§nS~u. AA_i(«HIlV§""C:UJARAT PRAVASI v.5. MAHAMANDAL :--",_AND bTl-i~ERxS"Vreg:po't.ted in (2004) 5 scc 155. The relevant V'7'.g)_arag'raph.h4of..the said judgment is extracted hereinbelowz _ _ Entry 56 authorises a tax, the incidence of . whichhis on goods and passengers carried by road or on .i.'_nland waterways. Even though the amount of the tax may be measured by the fares or by the distance travelled, the entry does not specify who should be the assessee and, therefore, it is open to enact a law to recover the tax from the owners or operators of they vehicles. The tax imposed under this entry regulatory and compensatory character, The tax.unde.r:'V' Entry 57 is leviable by the State tegisiatui-e"'c.,}ij~_.3ii'-. 4 vehicles "suitable for use on roads"',:whi'»ch' the State. The tax is compensatoryin_V_natur¢'..',and, "
therefore, must have some with the using the public roads of the'vl4l";State. 2 The ' "suitable for use" signi'fy':'t~he l<_r'n.o"_oF'jy'e'h'icles rneaning thereby that the vehicles' should which are normally capable of ru'n'il»lng on._th_e" he entry does not indi'c.ate":,;j,l_nVany r"nanne'r would be leviable only? vehicle is actually using thVe.,roa6»..,§'noi.:l?0t 0_tl:.erwise._an~:§l therefore, it has no correlation period of use. Naturally the Statevhas roads and to keep them i'n proper cona'iti'on~__ fol? those who own vehicles suitable for use roacls. This is irrespective of the . ''"fa.ct'"whe'tnerl' they or not or use it occasionally or _hfo'rhsho.rt'-rlurationonly. It being a tax and not a fee (as uiigle*rstoou7_"i.n conservative sense), the actual use T of the public «roads of the State cannot be insisted upon
- '-for inctlrriiirg the liability. "
fine learned AGA brought to my notice the Hon'bIe "sujpre,m5ee Court's judgment in the case of MAHAKOSHAL ."'~...:iCtofinxsr, NAPIER TOWN AND omens v. STATE OF M.P. 33H I9 exceeding 16 kms. per hour and on bridges and Culverts at a speed not exceeding 8 kms. per hour, From this it is suggested that they have a mi'nim.i.i_rhf:..3. weight and safe laden weight fixed on some pri'nc:ip'les,::' Pictures of various types of Dumpersmhave a'l's"o' ' sent to us which indicate prominently one :fa;:to'r_'tha't.V~,|V these Dumpers run on tyres, in marl<edV_t.contrav_st*to chain plates like cater pillers or._n7i.litary"'tanlcs. use of rubber tyres it is evidentttttthat they l:a_vte'tbee}n adapted for use on roads, they are suitable for being used on"pri'blic..rt)a:ds.:'ic't7l°.e"'mere fact that they are required at'pl~a-cestt'o_'»r_uh..'at;tafptarticular speed is not otherwise clear that they Vadaptedit'j'for-use roads. The very , t. ., .
manufactured to'r."ao_'apte'd_ for :.isje only i'n factories or enclosed premi'ses,V '*Tjiie'rn_eie. fact that the Dumpers or Rockers as tbs'-uggvestedtarezhteavy and cannot move on the roadsr.wi'tho'ut_Vtdamaging them is not to say that t'tl'.'e)t'"are5"nottasuitablewfor use on roads. The word fadap'ted'~._i'n.,t"th_e"-provision was read as 'suitable' in Bolani'OVres--".cas'eVlAIR 1975 SC 17) by interpretation on the strength, of the language in Entry 57, List II of the 1"~f___t'~Constitution. Thus on that basis it was idle to contend '_ v~:foriVb'e.half of the appellant that dumpers and Rockers . were'hneither adaptable nor 'suitable for use on public roads. Thus on the fact situation, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was right in concluding that Dumpers and Rockers are vehicles REP}.
20 adapted or suitable for use on roads and being motor vehicles per se, as held in Bolani Ores case, were liable_}._ to taxation on the footing of their use or kept on public roads; the network of which, H spreads, maintains it and keeps __al/.aiiabie"foi----.:;iseV"or".V motor vehicles and hence entitled,' to Zaéghregulaitoryi Compensatory tax. (Exemptions claimable apai_=vt);' ~ appellants, therefore, i'n oui'._V:l?IeVw, havte Vnoil~cas_e"'=foi'° grant of any relief in these appeals.
22. The briliiant Sri Kathavé do not hold good, as§~'theVg:pZt--ax vefifaoytion of money by public authorityiilloi;:::4puflbV'l'i':l:-- by law. There is no quid pro"g'u'o' exigible to tax, if it is not making usellof the Asheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the caseoxf StVa~.te>of'GVujarat (supra), the actual use of ;th'ev.roads'ofA~.,the. AStatVes"'cannot be insisted upon for incurring the talxrelifance by the petitioners' side on Bolani and ' itH...VPampa,p'athvi_'s'le--as:es (supra) does not strengthen their cases in 'E'he':.decisions in the Pampax/athi's case is following the pog{t£on""Stated in Bo|ani's case. An entirely different view is in Chief General Manager, Jagannath (supra), ""'*A.,yli:.f:erein it is held that if a party, for one reason or the other fifiirl.
chooses not to enjoy the services provided by the State, cannot escape the taxing liability on that count.
23. The taxable event occurs slmpliciter, whe.n._'the'_h'rrii~ot'0.r vehicle is suitabie for use on roads'; it is dehors_the;.sufb'sequent it use or non~use of the vehicle on the :road".'' tiie.__"noVn;Vu'se of the vehicles on public roads, the>,.petitioners' |iabi'i.i_ty:"to" tax does not cease. There is no ne'5<:is»between 'the actual use of the venicie on the roads and~~!.i,_abilii'ty'.tAo--:p_a,yi'the talxf
24. Under Section 4 ofthe 'At.i_ie_'_ievy of tax under Section 3 is payab'ie"fo,r'a qiuatteir, half ~a'-a,zea.} or year in advance within 15 days trivia-com'mencemé:nt of such quarter, half a year or year, the Thus, under the scheme of 1957 Act, taxing, event oiccurslat the beginning of every quarter, ;h'a.i,f_ yearior ._one_ year', 'a--s...the case may be. _ 'Central Coal Fields Ltd. case (supra), the .v.,Ape>r'C_ourt heid that the dumpers and rockers are liabie to be ..t_l,i'_;.y_.ta><,ed; suchta tax is reguiatory and compensatory. As held in 4the"_casefiof State of Gujarat (supra), it is a tax and not a fee.
26. The petitioners have aiso the grievance that the V""~..o.'f*ficer has passed the impugned orders even after receiving his transfer order. Whiie it maybe desirabie not to pass the order in Fi1S'l£