Gujarat High Court
Reliance Industries Ltd. & vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 15 July, 2011
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sonia Gokani
SCA/11848/2005 1/130 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11848 of 2005
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2538 of 2009
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2539 of 2009
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8620 of 2002
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15271 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15326 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16228 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16736 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17686 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17707 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17708 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17709 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17965 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 321 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 545 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 703 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 704 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 908 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1023 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1304 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1917 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3147 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4441 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5953 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6179 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6180 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6200 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6326 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6351 of 2004
With
SCA/11848/2005 2/130 JUDGMENT
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6667 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7384 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12616 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14454 of 2004
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12680 of 2005
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14448 of 2005
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14451 of 2005
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14470 of 2005
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15098 of 2005
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17107 of 2005
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18774 of 2005
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 20802 of 2005
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 21886 of 2005
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4090 of 2006
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4092 of 2006
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4277 of 2006
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4281 of 2006
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12394 of 2006
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17843 of 2006
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17993 of 2006
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4704 of 2007
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 29762 of 2007
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13051 of 2008
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11283 of 2009
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15284 of 2003
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4094 of 2006
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
SCA/11848/2005 3/130 JUDGMENT
=========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the
4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made
thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge
5 ?
=========================================================
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR KS NANAVATI(SR.ADV.),MR MIHIR THAKORE(SR.ADV.),MR NV ANJARIA, MR
RC KAKKAD, MR JV JAPEE, MR BM MANGUKIYA, MRS.MAUNA M BHATT, MR NIRAV
C THAKKAR, MR RB DAVE, MR UMESH A TRIVEDI, MR BT RAO, MR HP RAVAL, MR
ASIM PANDYA, MRS NILDHARA I DESAI, MR TANVISH U BHATT, MR VIPUL S
MODI, MS BELA A PRAJAPATI and MR BHARAT JANI for Petitioners
MR KB TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with MS SANGEETA
VISHAN,ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 15/07/2011
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. In this group of petitions, though there are certain factual differences in different petitions, statutory provisions and law applicable are common. We have, therefore, grouped these petitions for hearing them together. Having herd the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, we propose to dispose of the entire group by this common judgment.
2. At the center of controversy is the question of SCA/11848/2005 4/130 JUDGMENT different vehicles involved in different petitions and their exigibility to road tax under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 ('Tax Act' for short). Vehicles involved in the petitions include Crawler Cranes of different dimensions and sizes, Excavators, Dumpers, Loaders, Graders, Road Rollers, Fort Lifts, Drilling Rings, Pavers, etc. It is the case of the petitioners that these vehicles are not motor vehicles as defined in section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles At, 1988 ('MV Act' for short). It is the contention of the petitioners that such vehicles are not adapted for use on the road. Alternatively, their contention is that such vehicles are adapted for use only in factory premises or enclosed premises. In nutshell, their case is that looking to the size, shape, dimensions, weight and other factors, these vehicles cannot be said to be those which are suitable for being driven on the roads. With respect to the detailed submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we shall advert at a later stage.
3. On the other hand, case of the respondents is that these vehicles are motor vehicles as defined in section 2(28) of the MV Act. They are, therefore, required to be compulsorily registered and liable to pay road tax applicable from time to time. It is the case of the respondents that mere fact that these vehicles are predominantly used in factory premises or at mining sites or such other enclosed premises and rarely brought on road, by itself would not be sufficient to exclude them from the definition of SCA/11848/2005 5/130 JUDGMENT 'motor vehicle' under section 2(28) of the MV Act.
4. Since different vehicles are involved in different petitions, it would be convenient to take note of the nature of vehicles, its dimensions and other statistical data, etc. with respect to the vehicle in question involved in these petitions.
5. Since pleadings are not common, we prefer to notice the facts as emerging from Special Civil Application No.11848 of 2005. This petition has been filed by Reliance Industries Limited and others challenging the orders dated 28.4.2003 and 10.6.2005 passed by the Local Authorities, by virtue of which, certain equipments used in the factory premises are being subjected to motor vehicle tax. In particular, order dated 28.4.2003 was passed by the Appellate Authority and the Regional Transport Commissioner demanding motor vehicle tax from the petitoenrs and its crawler crane TFC 280 which was intercepted at Bhilad check-post. By further order which is also impugned in this petition dated 10th June 2005, Revisional Authority, i.e. Joint Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order of the Regional Transport Commissioner dated 28.4.2003.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the 3crawler crane or the vehicle in question is a chain mounted crane fitted with a boom of high-lift capacity which is ideal for repeated lifting and SCA/11848/2005 6/130 JUDGMENT slewing from a medium to long term set up position. These cranes cannot be transported as a single unit and have to be dismantled completely before they can be shifted from one place to another. These cranes are so gigantic that they cannot be plied on the roads. They are also not fitted with wheels and are mounted on chains. It is the case of the petitioners that the word 'crawler' itself indicates that the machine can only crawl and cannot travel for any long distance. It is also the case of the petitioners that balance of the machine cannot be maintained since the gravity is not possible to maintain on roads on account of uneven road surface, speed breakers, bridges, ditches and such other similar conditions. The cranes can negotiate slope of maximum 2 to 3 degree gradient whereas the approaches to the roads, bridges and slopes at certain places have much steeper gradient due to which also the cranes cannot travel on normal road conditions. In other words, these cranes are not designed to travel like normal vehicles. These cranes weigh upto 600 tonnes and more. If such heavy machines are plied on the road, the surface of the road would be severely damaged. The crawler shoes are made of steel which will also damage the road surface and the surface could be peeled off if the vehicle is plied on the road. It is thus the case of the petitioners that these machines can never be said to be adapted to be used on road. It is also the case of the petitioners that the vehicles involved are having dimensions far in excess of the limits permitted under different SCA/11848/2005 7/130 JUDGMENT statutory provisions contained in the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules.
7. It is also the case of the petitioners that the RTO Authority and the Revisional Authority without even physical inspection of the vehicles concluded that the same are motor vehicles as they can be stated to be adapted for use on the road. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that some inspection report from the LD Engineering College was unilaterally obtained and heavy reliance was placed thereon by the authorities below to come to the conclusion that the vehicles are motor vehicles. Such report was not supplied to the petitioners. It is further the case of the petitioners that even the report was prepared without physical inspection of the vehicles in question.
8. It is further the case of the petitioners that the RTO Authorities of other States are not taxing similar vehicles. It is only in the State of Gujarat where the issue has arisen. Our attention was drawn to various documents on record in support of such a contention. It is also the case of the petitioners that previously even the State Authorities were of the opinion that such vehicles cannot be treated as motor vehicles. Our attention was drawn to communication dated 18th June 2003 from the Superintending Engineering, R & B Division, Gandhinagar wherein it was stated as under:
SCA/11848/2005 8/130 JUDGMENT "With reference to your letter dated 6.6.2003 quoted under reference, for permissions for travel Crawler Crane No.9310 from Bhilad, border to L and T Hazira via Vapi, Valsad, Navsari, Pulsana, Hazira, it is to inform you that travel of Crawler Crane on road damages the road surface and hence, permission is not granted. Moreover, Crawler crane is not meant for plying on the Roads. However, it should be travel on road only on trailers and not on its own power."
The petitioners have placed heavy reliance on the different certificates issued by the manufacturer or supplier of the vehicles indicating that such vehicles are not roadworthy. In particular our attention is drawn to a communication dated 20th March 2003 from one Liebherr-Werk Ehingen GMBH, in which, with respect to question of using rubber pads on crawler chains it was conveyed as under:
"1. Crawler cranes are basically for use at sites and we do not find any justification or need of rubber pads on the crawlers. We are the world leader in Crane technology and manufacture Crawler Cranes upto 1200 ton capacity. This is the first time we have received such request. Mostly crawler cranes of such capacity have very low travel speed, less than 2 km/hr and user do not march it for long distances on its own power.
2. Regarding fitment of rubber pad on Crawler Chains, please note that we have never supplied cranes with rubber padding. Crawler cranes are not supposed to travel on Public Road and for transportation, they are to be dismantled and carried on Trucks/Trailers/Railway wagons.
3. We are of the opinion that even if by any means rubber pads are mounted n the crawlers, they will either wear out or break immediately due to very high pressure. The cranes under SCA/11848/2005 9/130 JUDGMENT subject has self-weight more than 400 tons in working condition and specially during steering, it exerts tremendous pressure. Hence, it is not practical to use or fit rubber pads on the crawlers."
Similar communications have been issued by other manufacturers and placed on record. It s not necessary to duplicate the contents of such communications.
9. The respondents have filed detailed affidavit and opposed the petitions contending that the vehicles in questions are motor vehicles covered under section 2(28) of the MV Act. They also construction equipment vehicles as defined under rule 2(ca) under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Central Rules") It is, therefore, the case of the respondents that these vehicles need to pay road tax. The respondents have produced the report of the LD Engineering College dated 17th February 2003 which reads as under:
"With reference to the above, our expert team has visited the Crawler type cranes at the road site on the Sarkhej - Gandhinagar Highway on 14-2- 2003. The report prepared after the observations is as under.
As per the definition of "Construction equipment vehicle" given in Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The details of Crawler type crane, dumper or motor grader are described below.
Crawler type crane, dumper or motor grader satisfies the following requirement of the above mentioned rule.
SCA/11848/2005 10/130 JUDGMENT ● Crawler type crane, dumper or motor grader is non-transport vehicle.
● Its driving on the road is incidental to the main off-highway function and for a short duration at a speed not exceeding 50 kms. Per hour.
● It is not purely off-highway construction equipment vehicle designed and adapted for use in any enclosed premises, factory or mines other than road network.
● It is equipped to travel on public roads on its own power.
● When it has to travel on public roads, it must be equipped with rubber pads on the crawlers, so that the road may not be damaged by the crawlers. The rubber pads should be provided by the manufacturers, same may please be ensured from manufacturers.
Looking to the above observations for provisions of Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, we are of the opinion that the crawler type crane, dumper or motor grader can be classified as construction equipment vehicle."
10. On the basis of above factual aspects, learned counsel Shri K.S.Nanavati leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners drew our attention to the statutory provisions. It was pointed out that though term 'motor vehicle' has not been defined in the Tax Act, by virtue of section 2(10) of the Tax Act, definition of the term 'motor vehicle' as contained in section 2(28)of the MV Act is adopted. He, therefore, focused the arguments on the question whether the vehicles in question would be covered within the meaning of 'motor vehicle' under section 2(28) of the Act. Our attention was invited to Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which laid down maximum width, height SCA/11848/2005 11/130 JUDGMENT and other dimensions for motor vehicle. Our attention was also drawn to rule 94 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which requires that a motor vehicle should be fitted with pneumatic tyres to contend that in the present case since the crawler cranes were mounted not on rubber types, they cannot be categorized as motor vehicle.
11. In view of the above background, counsel for the petitioners contended that -
(i)That the vehicles in question do not satisfy the requirements of definition contained in section 2(28) of the MV Act.
(ii)That the vehicles are not capable of being put to use on road and therefore, they cannot be termed as motor vehicles.
(iii)That the vehicles are also not construction equipment vehicles as defined in rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
(iv)That even if the vehicles are seen as being construction equipment vehicles, that by itself would not satisfy the requirement of being motor vehicle unless and until the requirement of definition contained in section 2(28) of the Act are satisfied. Unless the vehicle is a 'motor vehicle', it cannot be subjected to road tax.
SCA/11848/2005 12/130 JUDGMENT
(v) He further submitted that the vehicles are specially designed vehicles meant for use only in factory and other closed premises. Such vehicles are never brought on road in the existing conditions. He, therefore contended that they cannot be subjected to any tax under the Tax Act.
12. Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions :
i) In the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. State of Orissa, (1974) 2 SCC 777 wherein the Apex Court interpreted section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 defining the term 'motor vehicle' and made the following observations :
"23. The meaning of the word "adapted" in Section 2 (18) of the Act is itself indicated in entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which confers a power on the State to tax vehicles whether propelled mechanically or not and uses the word "suitable" in relation to its use on the roads. The words "adapted for use"
must therefore be construed as "suitable for use". At any rate, words "adapted for use" cannot be larger in their import by including vehicles which are not "suitable for use" on roads. In this sense, the words "is adapted" for use have the same connotation as "is suitable" or "is fit"
for use on the roads.
24. The question would then arise, are dumpers, rockers and tractors suitable or fit for use on roads ? It is not denied, that these vehicles are on pneumatic wheels and can be moved about from place to place with mechanical power. The word "vehicle" itself connotes that it is a contrivance which moves. A vehicle which merely moves from one place to another need not SCA/11848/2005 13/130 JUDGMENT necessarily be a motor vehicle within the meaning of S. 2 (18) of the Act. It may move on iron flats made into a chain such as a caterpillar vehicle or a military tank. Both move from one place to another but are not suitable for use on roads. It is not that they cannot move on the roads but that they are not adapted, made fit or suitable for use on roads. They would, if used, dig and damage the roads. It is contended that the dumpers or rockers are very heavy and though they can move on roads they would damage the roads and, therefore, they are not suitable for use on roads. To substantiate this proposition the appellants have produced before us certain notifications issued by the State of Orissa under which vehicles beyond a certain laden weight are prohibited from plying on the roads. It was rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for the State of Orissa that there are only some of the roads on which vehicles heavier than what is indicated in the notification cannot be permitted. But that is not to say that all vehicles which exceed a particular weight are not adapted for use upon roads and are, therefore, not motor vehicles. ...."
ii)Counsel also relied on a decision of the Apex Court in th case of Income Tax Commissioner v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd, AIR 1999 SC 1275 to contend that taxing statute must be construed strictly.
iii)In support of his contention that tax imposed on motor vehicle is compensatory in nature, counsel relied on several decisions, in particular in the case of State of Gujarat v. Kaushikbhai K. Patel, (2000) 5 SCC 615.
iv)To contend that tax which his not authorized cannot be levied, counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of SCA/11848/2005 14/130 JUDGMENT Corporation of City of Bangalore v. Keshoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd., 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 753.
v) In support of his contention that delegated legislation cannot override the provisions of the parent Act, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Agriculture Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 516 and in the cae of Babaji Kondaji Gard v. Nasik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 50.
Other learned advocates appearing in different petitions have in addition to adopting these arguments expanded these submissions.
13. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents opposed the petitions contending that the term 'motor vehicle' defined under section 2(28) of the Act is very wide. Only because the vehicle is not normally used on the road, it cannot be stated that the same is not a motor vehicle. He further contended that the definition of the term "construction equipment vehicle" contained in rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules throws further light on the intention of the Legislature to collect tax on all motor vehicles.
14. Referring to and relying on several decisions of the Apex Court, counsel submitted that the term SCA/11848/2005 15/130 JUDGMENT 'motor vehicle' should be interpreted and construed liberally. He further submitted that large number of vehicles involved in this group of petitions run on rubber mounted tyres and in fact they are used on the road on regular basis, such as, dumpers, road rollers, excavators, etc. and by no stretch of imagination, can it be stated that these vehicles are not motor vehicles. Learned Advocate General relied on several decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court in support of his contentions.
15. Learned Advocate General placed reliance on the decision in the case of Travancore Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1980) 3 SCC 619 in which the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) was distinguished. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Central Coal Field v. State of Orissa, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 133 wherein also, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) came up for consideration. The Apex Court ruled that Dumpers, Rockers with rubber tyres, though used for transporting goods within the enclosed factory premises were nevertheless adaptable and suitable for use on public roads, were motor vehicles. Reliance was placed in the case of Union of India v. Cowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1992 Supp (3) SCC 141 wherein also, distinguishing the decision in the case of Bolani Ores (supra), it was held that Dumpers and shovels used in mining activities were motor vehicles.
Reliance was also placed in the case of M/s. SCA/11848/2005 16/130 JUDGMENT Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 3428 wherein the Apex Court interpreted the term 'motor vehicle' in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has been enacted in order to keep control over vehicles. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of State of Gujarat v. Akhil Gujaratr Pravasi V. S.Mahamandal, (2004) 5 SCC 155 wherein, the Apex Court, considered the decision in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) and the same was distinguished.
Heavy reliance was placed on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Crane Owners Association v. Union of India, 2001 (1) GCD 724 (Guj) wherein the Bench held that Mobile Crane mounted on motor vehicle is a vehicle of special type and could not be excluded from the definition of the term 'motor vehicle' for the purpose of tax.
Learned Advocate General referred to several other decisions of the Apex Court as well as different High Courts to which reference will be made in the later part of the judgment.
16. MV Act 1988 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. The Tax Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the taxation of motor vehicles in the State and to provide for certain other matters. Under the MV Act, the Central Legislature has enacted the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which provide for SCA/11848/2005 17/130 JUDGMENT several details to work out the provisions of the Act, such as, licensing, registration of motor vehicles, safety standards, etc. The Tax Act does not define the term 'motor vehicle'. Section 2(10) of the said Act reads as under:
"(10) other words and expressions used, but not defined, in this Act shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."
Thus the words and expressions not defined under the Tax Act shall carry the same meaning assigned to them under the MV Act.
Section 2(28) of the MV Act defines the term 'motor vehicle' as under:
"(28) 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-
five cubic centimeters."
As per section 2(28) of the MV Act, any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source, including a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer, would be motor vehicle unless as provided in the later portion of the definition, a vehicle is SCA/11848/2005 18/130 JUDGMENT excluded on account of its running upon fixed rails or on account of the vehicle being a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or being a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimeters. We will advert to this definition of the term 'motor vehicle' at greater length later. However, at this stage, we may notice that principally for each category of vehicle to be judged by us in this group of petitions, two aspects would be of paramount consideration.First would be, whether the vehicle can be stated to be one which is adapted for use upon roads and second, can it be excluded by virtue of the vehicle being of special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises.
17. Before taking note of several judicial pronouncements throwing lights on these aspects, it would be useful and necessary to take note of certain provisions contained in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules defines the term "construction equipment vehicle" as under:
(ca) "construction equipment vehicle" means rubber tyred (including pneumatic tyred), rubber padded or steel drum wheel mounted, self-
propelled, excavator, loader, backhoe, compactor roller, dumper, motor grader, mobile crane, dozer, fort lift truck, self-loading concrete mixer or any other construction equipment vehicle or combination thereof designed for off highway operations in mining, industrial undertaking, SCA/11848/2005 19/130 JUDGMENT irrigation and general construction but modified and manufactured with "on or off" or "on and off" highway capabilities.
Explanation - A construction equipment vehicle shall be a non-transport vehicle the driving on the road of which is incidental to the main off- highway function and for a short duration at a speed not exceeding 50 kms per hour, but such vehicle does not include other purely off-highway construction equipment vehicle designed and adapted for use in any enclosed premises, factory or in other than road net work, not equipped to travel on public roads on their own power."
Rule 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules provides overall dimensions of motor vehicle, relevant portion of which reads as under:
"93. Overall dimension of motor vehicles.--(1) The overall width of a motor vehicle,measured at right angles to the axis of the motor vehicle between perpendicular planes enclosing the extreme points, 134[shall not exceed 2.6 metres.] Explanation.--For purposes of this rule, a rear-
view mirror, or guard rail or a directionindicator 136[rub-rail (rubber beading) having maximum thickness of 20 mm on each side of the body] shall not be taken into consideration in measuring the overall width of a motor vehicle.
(1-A) The overall width of a construction equipment vehicle, measured at right angles to the axis of the construction equipment vehicle between perpendicular planes enclosing the extreme points, shall not exceed 3 metres while in the travel mode andsuch construction equipment vehicle 138 shall be painted by yellow and black zebra stripes on the portion of the width that exceeds 2.6 metres] on the front and rear sides duly marked for night time driving/parking suitably by red lamps at the front and rear:
SCA/11848/2005 20/130 JUDGMENT Provided that the zebra stripes need not be used on attachments.
(2) The overall length of a motor vehicle other than a trailer shall not exceed-- (i) in the case of motor vehicle other than transport vehicle having not more than two axles, 6.5 metres;
(ii) in the case of transport vehicle with rigid frame having two or more axles, 12 metres;
(iii) in the case of articulated vehicles having more than two axles, 16 metres;
(iv) m the case of truck-trailer or tractor-
trailer combination, 18 metres;
(v) in the case of 3 axle passenger transport vehicles, 15 metres;
(vi) in the case of single articulated (vestibule type) passenger transport vehicle, 18 metres (Please see the conditions given in note below);
(vii) in the case of double articulate passenger transport vehicles, 25 metres (Please see the conditions given in note below).
Note.--In the case of single articulated passenger transport vehicles of 18 metres length and double articulated passenger transport vehicles upto 25 metres, permission of the State Government shall be obtained regarding their plying on selected routes depending upon local road conditions, width, maneuverability of the vehicle in traffic, as deemed fit. These passenger transport vehicles will also be required to have a closed circuit TV 136 Substituted by G.S.R. 221(E), dated 28-3-2001, for "(when in operation)" (w.e.f. 28-3- 2001).system for proper visibility in and around the passenger transport vehicle by the driver to maintain safety. Intercom system shall also be provided in such passenger transport vehicle. In addition, the standing passenger will be allowed SCA/11848/2005 21/130 JUDGMENT only on the lower deck of double articulated passenger transport vehicle.
xxxx xxxx (4) The overall height of a motor vehicle measured from the surface on which the vehicle rests,--
(i) in the case of a vehicle other than a double- decked 142[transport vehicle, shall not exceed 3.8 metres;
(ii) in the case of a double decked transport vehicle, shall not exceed 4.75 metres; (ii-a) in the case of tractor-trailer goods vehicle, shall not exceed 4.20 metres;]
(iii) in the case of a laden trailer carrying ISO series 1 Freight Container, shall not exceed 4.2 metres:
Provided that the provisions of clauses (i) to
(iii) shall not apply to fire-escape tower wagons and other special purpose vehicles exempted by general or special order of registering authority.
4-A. The overall height of a construction equipment vehicle measured from the surface on which the vehicle rests shall not exceed 4.75 meters, while on the travel mode:
Provided that the provisions of this sub-rule shall not apply to any other special purpose attachment to the construction equipment vehicle exempted by general or special order of the registering authority."
Rule 94 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules pertains to conditions of tyres and reads as under:
"94. Condition of tyres.-- (1) Every motor vehicle SCA/11848/2005 22/130 JUDGMENT including agricultural tractor and its trailer shall be fitted with pneumatic tyres and every construction equipment vehicle, other than steel drum rollers of vibratory compactors or compactor rollers or road roller or a track laying vehicle, shall be fitted with pneumatic tyres or solid rubber tyres.
(2) The pneumatic tyres of a motor vehicle including agricultural tractor and its trailer shall be kept properly inflated and in good and sound condition.
(3) For the purpose of sub-rule (2), a tyre shall not be deemed to be of good and sound condition if--
(i) any of the fabric of its casing is exposed by wear of the tread or by any unvulcanised cut or abrasion in any of its parts; or
(ii) it shows signs of incipient failure by local deformation or swelling; or
(iii) it has been patched or repaired by an outside gaiter or patch other than a vulcanise drepair;
(iv) the Non-Skid Depth (NSD), shall not be less than 0.8 mm in the case of two wheeler and three-
wheeler and 1.6 mm in the case of other motor vehicles, below the Tread Wear Indicator (TWI) embedded in tyres at the time of manufacture:
Provided that the requirement specified in clause (iii) shall not apply to a temporary repair effected to enable the vehicle to be moved to the nearest place where the tyre can be repaired or replaced:
Provided further that where a motor vehicle, other than road roller or track laying vehicle, is not fitted with pneumatic tyres, it shall not be used in a public place unless it is fitted with shoes or other suitable device so that plying of such vehicle does not damage the road: SCA/11848/2005 23/130 JUDGMENT Provided also that the requirements of the Non- Skid Depth (NSD) and Tread Wear Indicator (TWI) specified in clause (iv) shall not be applicable for the agricultural tractor tyres."
18. Having taken note of the statutory provisions applicable, we may peruse the judgments cited before us to discern the trend emerging with respect to interpretation of the term 'motor vehicle' rendered by the Apex Court and various High Courts.
19. As already noted, in Bolani Ores (supra), the Apex Court interpreted the words "adapted for use"
as to mean suitable for use in relation to use on the road. It was observed that the words "adapted for use" must therefore be construed as "suitable for use" and the words "adapted for use" cannot be larger in their import by including vehicles which are not "suitable for use" on roads. It was further observed that a vehicle which merely moves from one place to another need not necessarily be a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It may move on iron flats made into a chain such as caterpillar vehicle or a military tank. Both move from one place to another but are not suitable for use on roads. It was observed that it is not that they cannot move on the roads but that they are not adapted, made fit or suitable for use on roads. In the same judgment, however, a rider was added when the Apex Court observed that it is not that all vehicles which exceed a particular weight are not adapted for use upon road and are therefore, SCA/11848/2005 24/130 JUDGMENT not motor vehicles. These observations were made in the background of the suggestion made on behalf of the petitioners therein that the vehicles should not be considered as motor vehicles since it exceeded certain laden weight beyond which the State prohibited such vehicles from plying on roads.
20. The decision in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) came up for consideration in later decisions on several occasions. In the case of Travancore Tea Company Ltd (supra), the Apex court noticed that the decision in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) was rendered in the context of the term 'motor vehicle' defined in section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and that thereafter there were certain legislative changes. The Court, therefore, observed as under:
"10. Before concluding, we would refer to a contention raised by the learned counsel based on the decision of this Court in Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (AIR 1975 SC 17) (supra). The plea of the learned counsel is that the words "motor vehicle" should be understood as defined by Sec. 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and exclude from taxation motor vehicles "used solely upon the premises of the owner." As the vehicles with which we are concerned were claimed to have been kept for use solely in the premises of the company, it was contended that the vehicles are not exigible to tax. This Court in the decision cited was dealing with the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930. Section 2 (c) of the Orissa Taxation Act adopted the definition of Motor Vehicle Act as found in Motor Vehicles Act, 1914. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1914 was repealed and replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The definition of 'motor vehicle' in Sec. 2 (18) of SCA/11848/2005 25/130 JUDGMENT the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 excluded motor vehicles used solely upon the premises of the owner. The Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was amended and Orissa Amendment Act, 1943 re-enacted the provisions of the Taxation Act. "Motor Vehicles" was defined under Sec. 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 excluding vehicles used solely upon the premises of the owner. Subsequently the definition of 'motor vehicle' under section 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act was amended by the Act 100 of 1956 which confined the exemption from taxation to "motor vehicles of a special type adopted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises." The exemption from tax can only be claimed after amendment to S. 2 (18) by Act, 100 of 1956, if the vehicle was of special type adopted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises and the exemption that was available before the amendment by Act 100 of 1956 to Motor Vehicles used solely upon the premises of the owner was taken away. This Court held "if the subsequent, Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1943, incorporating the definition of 'motor vehicle' referred to the definition of 'Motor Vehicle' under the Act as then existing, the effect of this legislative method would, in our view, amount to an incorporation by reference of the provisions of Section 2 (1) of the Act in Section 2 (c) of the Taxation Act. Any subsequent amendment in the Act or a total repeal of the Act under a fresh legislation on that topic would not affect the definition of 'motor vehicle' in S. 2
(c) of the Taxation Act". As a result this Court held that the definition of 'motor Vehicle' given in S. 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the amendment by Act 100 of 1956 was applicable. Relying on this decision, the learned counsel submitted that the test that is to be applied to determine whether motor vehicle is liable to tax or not is whether it comes under the exemption provided by under Sec. 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the amendment. We are unable to accept the contention mainly on the ground that the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (Act 24 of 1963) came into force on 18-3-63. Section 2 (1) of the SCA/11848/2005 26/130 JUDGMENT Taxation Act provides that words and expression used but not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939) shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in that Act. On the date when the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act was enacted, Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was amended by Act 100 of 1956 and the amended definition on the date when the Taxation Act came into force exempted only motor vehicles which are of a special type adopted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. This amended definition will have to be read into the Taxation Act which was enacted subsequent to the date of the amendment of the definition of 'Motor Vehicle' by Act 100 of 1956. In this view we fell that the decision in Bolani's case (supra) will not be of any assistance to the learned counsel for the appellants."
21. In the case of Central Coal Field (supra), the decision in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) was noticed. The Apex Court taking note of the definition of the term 'motor vehicle' in section 2(18) after its amendment, which provides for exclusion of vehicle of special tyres adapted for use only in a factory or in other enclosed premises, held that the dumpers with rubber types used for transporting goods within the enclosed premises were motor vehicles. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the vehicle being adaptable and suitable for use on public roads irrespective of their and speed restriction were nevertheless motor vehicles. It was observed that by use of rubber tyres it is evident that the vehicles have been adapted for use on roads which means that they are suitable for being used on public roads.
22. Bolani Ores (supra) once again came up for SCA/11848/2005 27/130 JUDGMENT consideration in the case of Chowgule & Company (supra) wherein the same was distinguished.
23. In the case of Akhil Gujarat Prvasi V.S.Mahamandal (supra) also, the decision in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) came up for consideration. In the context of the authority to tax motor vehicles, it was observed that tax is compensatory in nature and must have some nexus with vehicle using the public roads. It was further observed that words "suitable for use" signify the kind of vehicles meaning thereby that the vehicles should be such type which are normally capable of running on the road. It was further observed that entry does not indicate in any manner that tax would be leviable only for the period when the vehicle is actually using the road and not otherwise and, therefore, it has no correlation with the actual period of use. It was further observed as under:
"Naturally the State has to maintain the roads and to keep them in proper condition for all those who own vehicles suitable for use on roads. This is irrespective of the fact whether they use it or not or use it occasionally or for short duration only. It being a tax and not a fee (as understood in the conservative sense), the actual use of the public roads of the State cannot be insisted upon for incurring the liability."
As already noted, in the case of M/s.Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court advocated the broadest possible reading of the term "motor SCA/11848/2005 28/130 JUDGMENT vehicle' keeping in mind that the Act has been enacted to keep control over the motor vehicles and transport vehicles, etc. It was observed as under:
"24. Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words "motor vehicle". Although, a "trailer" is separately defined under Section 2(46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by motor vehicle, it is still included into the definition of the words "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28). Similarly, the word "tractor" is defined in Section 2(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words "motor vehicle" have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the legislature. Therefore, we have to read the words "motor vehicle" in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has been enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions under Section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor- trailer would constitute a "goods carriage" under Section 2(14) and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under Section 2(47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor-trailer in the present case falls under Section 2(14) as a "goods carriage" and consequently, it falls under the definition of "transport vehicle" under Section 2(47) of the M.V. Act, 1988." SCA/11848/2005 29/130 JUDGMENT
24. In the case of Crane Owners Association (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, taking note of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) and Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), etc. concluded that mobile crane mounted on motor vehicle is a vehicle of special type and it could not be excluded from the definition of motor vehicle for the purpose of tax since it was capable of being sued on the road for its transportation. It is, of course, true that on behalf of the petitioners, it was conceded that the vehicle in question would be a motor vehicle, nevertheless, the Division Bench examined the judicial pronouncements in detail and held as under:
"25. From the observations quoted above, the Supreme Court in deciding upon the taxability of motor vehicle, which undisputedly the mounted mobile cranes are, attached due importance to the definition clause contained in Section 2(28) and held that vehicles with wheels and tyres which can run on public roads are `motor vehicles' exigible to tax because "they are not manufactured or adapted for use only in factory or enclosed premises" to fall in the exception clause of the definition of `motor vehicle' in Section 2(28) of the Act of 1988."
25. In the case of Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area v. State of Orissa, (1996) 10 SCC 676, the Apex Court held that dumpers running on tyres and used within mining areas were motor vehicle within the meaning of section 2(28) of the MV Act even though it was contended that such vehicles exceeded the SCA/11848/2005 30/130 JUDGMENT permissible restrictions laid down in rule 92 and 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The Apex Court opined that, it does not mean that the vehicles which are otherwise motor vehicles within the definition of clause go out of the definition the moment they exceed the limit as provided in Rules 92 or 93 of the Rules. It was held as under:
"7. The various restrictions contained in Rules 92 and 93 referred to by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel are intended to lay down the outer limits for the vehicles to be plied on the public road. But that does not mean that the vehicles which are otherwise motor vehicles within the definition clause go out of the definition the moment they exceed the limit as provided in Rules 92 or 93 of the Rules. The taxability of dumpers again came up before this Court in the case of Union of India v. Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1992 Supp (3) SCC 141 : (1992 AIR SCW 1373). In this case an argument had been advanced that the dumpers are used only in mining operation within the mining area and are not actually used on roads nor are suitable for use on roads and, therefore, are not taxable. The Judicial Commissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu accepted the contention and allowed the appeal. Union of India had come up in appeal to this Court. This Court reversed the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu and relying upon the earlier decision of this Court in Central Coal Fields Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 1992 Suppl (3) SCC 133 : (1992 AIR SCW 1366) held the mere fact that dumpers were used solely on the premises of the owner, or that they were in closed premises, or permission of the authorities was needed to move them from one place to another, or that they are not intended to be used or are incapable of being used for general purposes, or that they have an unladen and laden capacity depending on their weight and size, is of no consequence for, dumpers are vehicles used for transport of goods and thus liable to pay a SCA/11848/2005 31/130 JUDGMENT compensatory tax for the availability of roads for them to run upon commission."
26. In the case of Bose Abraham v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 157, the Apex court held that excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles within the meaning of section 2(28) of the MV Act.
27. In the case of M/s.Kshardas & Co. v. State of Maharasthra, AIR 1986 Bombay 348, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that motor crane has mobility and is also suitable for use on a public road so far as movement is concerned. Referring to the word "only" in the amended definition of section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which language is similar to that used in section 2(28) of the MV Act, it was held that it cannot be said that the crane is a vehicle which is adapted for use only in factory or any other clsoed premises.
28. The case of Poomani v. Tuticorin Thermal Power Project, AIR 1990 Madras 372, was a case wherein the learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the crane driven on public road is a motor vehicle. It was, however, a case arising out of motor accident compensation claim.
29. In the case of K.K.Jain v. Masroor Anwar, AIR 1990 Madhya Pradesh, 87, the High Court held that a dumper is a motor vehicle which is also a case arising out of motor accident compensation claim. SCA/11848/2005 32/130 JUDGMENT
30. In the case of M/s. Chakkiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 Kerala 363, a Division
Bench held that trailers kept in the area of the
Port Trust and which are used for transport inside
the Port area can still be said to be motor vehicles
kept for use in the State.
31. In the case of M/s.Birla Cement Works v. State
of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 Rajasthan 251, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that dumpers are motor vehicles liable to tax. It was held that only requirement is that the vehicle should be suitable for use on the roads whether it is actually used or not does not bring the vehicle out of the definition of the term of 'motor vehicle'.
32. From the above judicial pronouncements, it can be noted that the decision in the case of Bolani Ores (supra) was rendered in the background of the language used in section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. There were significant amendments in the said provision in the year 1956 and thereafter when Motor Vehicles Act 1988 was enacted. Section 2(28) of the MV Act, with which we are concerned in the present cases, uses language substantially different from which came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Bolani Ores (supra). These differences have been noted in subsequent judgments. Over a period, from the concept of vehicle being suitable for use on road, theory of normally capable of being used on road, the liberal interpretation of the term 'motor SCA/11848/2005 33/130 JUDGMENT vehicle' under section 2(28) of the Act has been propounded by the Apex Court in subsequent judgments. In the case of Chief General Manager Jagannath Area (supra) it was also observed that merely because the vehicle's dimensions exceed those specified in rule 92 and 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, that by itself would not be sufficient to get the vehicle out of the term 'motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(28) of the Act.
33. From the above, following broad propositions can be culled out.
i) For a vehicle to be a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 2(28) of the Act, what is necessary to be seen is whether it is adapted to use on the road;
ii)To judge such adaptability, size, dimensions, weight, use that the vehicle is normally put to are some of the factors which would be relevant.
iii)If on the basis of relevant considerations, including those noted above, it can be held that the vehicle is capable of being used on road, it would satisfy the definition of the term 'motor vehicle', unless, of course, it falls within the exclusion clause in the later portion of the definition.
iv)Whether the vehicle is being regularly used on road is not relevant as long as it can be used on road when required which would satisfy the requirement of the term vehicle adapted for use SCA/11848/2005 34/130 JUDGMENT on road.
v) Solely on account of the dimensions of the vehicle exceeding those specified in rule 92 and 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules by itself would not mean that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle. Though, this may be a relevant factor to be considered along with other factors.
vi)For a vehicle to fall in exclusion clause of the definition, it should be a vehicle of special type adapted for use only in a factory or any other enclosed premises. Here the term 'only' has great significance. In other words, the vehicle being normally or ordinarily or usually used or even adapted for use in a factory or any other enclosed premises would not be sufficient to take it out of the category of motor vehicle. The vehicles which are special type adapted for use 'only' in a factory or any other enclosed premises would get the benefit of such exclusion.
vii)Whether the equipment is fitted with pneumatic or rubber tyres or is chain mounted equipment would not in isolation be conclusive of the nature of the vehicle. However, the fact that a vehicle is fitted with pneumatic or rubber tyres would be one of the indications to suggest that it is adapted for use on road.
34. With the above clarity of mind, if we now examine each category of vehicles involved in this group of petitions, we find that the vehicles get divided in three broad categories. Category 'A' would be where SCA/11848/2005 35/130 JUDGMENT ex facie, looking to the dimensions of the vehicles, special use for which they are designed and made adaptable and such other relevant considerations, it can be stated that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle. In category 'B' would fall those vehicles which from the available material on record and applying the relevant considerations, very clearly fall within the definition of the term 'motor vehicle' and therefore exigible to road tax. Category 'C' would be those vehicles where without further inspection and inquiry, it would not be possible to judge whether they satisfy the test of vehicles being adapted for use on road and even if so, can be categorized as special type of vehicles adapted for use only in factory or in enclosed premises. To such type of vehicles, further inquiry shall have to be carried out by the respondents before holding that the vehicles are exigible to road tax.
35. We would now take up each category of vehicles for consideration on the basis of the observations made hereinabove. For familiarizing ourselves with the equipments we have accessed from the Internet useful information in respect of each category of vehicle, which will be described hereinafter individually category-wise. At the first instance, we would like to take up consideration of certain kinds of Crawler Cranes which can be grouped together looking to the dimensions.
1. Crawler Cranes SCA/11848/2005 36/130 JUDGMENT Crawler cranes are multipurpose lifting equipments.
It can be used for general erection. More so, as construction projects are becoming more complicated in sizes, like refineries, power plants and other industrial projects, role of crawler cranes are gaining further prominence as equipment that can undertake heavy lifting. The machine is technically complex to its core based on its versatility.
Assembling and dismantling of crane is also an important component of operation. During this operation, the space availability of the job site should be a major consideration as compared to other cranes, the crawler cranes require large bearing area, which has to be placed on flat position as placing out of the level even of 1 degree can cut its capacity.
One of the main features of crawler cranes is that they are very heavy and cannot be easily moved from one job site to the next location.
Crawler crane is a type of machine used for lifting heavy goods. It is equipped with chains or sheaves and crawlers. It can be used to lift and lower and move things, equipments in the construction site, mine, factory and dockside works.
2. Overhead Cranes SCA/11848/2005 37/130 JUDGMENT An overhead crane, also known as a bridge crane, is a type of crane where the hook-and-line mechanism runs along a horizontal beam that itself runs along two widely separated rails. Often it is in a long factory building and runs along rails along the building's two long walls. It is similar to a gantry crane. Overhead cranes typically consist of either a single beam or a double beam construction. These can be built using typical steel beams or a more complex box girder type. Pictures above is of a single bridge box girder crane with the hoist and system operated with a control pendant. Double girder bridge are more typical when needing heavier capacity systems from 10 tons and above.
The most common use of overhead crane is in the steel industry. At every step of the manufacturing process, until it leaves a factory as a finished product, steel is handled by an overhead crane. Raw materials are poured into a furnace by crane, hot steel is stored for cooling by an overhead crane, the finished coils are lifted and loaded onto trucks and trains by overhead crane, and the fabricator or stamper uses an overhead crane to handle the steel in his factory. The automobile industry uses overhead cranes for handling of raw materials. Smaller SCA/11848/2005 38/130 JUDGMENT workstation cranes handle lighter loads in the work- area, such as CNC mill or saw mill.
Almost all paper mills use bridge cranes for regular maintenance requiring removal of heavy press rolls and other equipment. The bridge cranes are used in the initial construction of paper machines because they facilitate installation of the heavy cast iron paper drying drums and other massive equipment, some weighing as much as 70 tons.
3. Truck-mounted crane A crane mounted on a truck carrier provides the mobility for this type of crane. Generally, these cranes are able to travel on highways, eliminating the need for special equipment to transport the crane. When working on the jobsite, outriggers are extended horizontally from the chassis then vertically to level and stabilize the crane while stationing and hoisting. Many truck cranes have slow-travelling capability ( a few miles per hour).
Truck cranes range in lifting capacity from about 14.5 short tons (12.9 long tons;13.2 t) to about 1,300 short tons (1,161 long tons; 1,179 t).
36. Crawler cranes marked in 'A' category SCA/11848/2005 39/130 JUDGMENT These cranes are not mounted on rubber tyres propelling the vehicle. They are chain mounted vehicles. They are used in factory premises for construction, erection of towers and such other related activities. These cranes have boom of varying length.
Details regarding the dimensions, such as, height, width, length weight, lifting capacity, speed, etc. of the vehicles are mentioned while dealing with individual petitions but following is an instance of its dimensions:-
Sr.No Model Name of Equi Heig Widt Len Weigh Maxi Maxi Met kg. km/ Equipment pmen ht h gth t mum mum ric hr.
t poss poos ton
ible sibl Kg
boom e
leng comb
th inat
ionM
etri
c
ton
A Demag CC Crawler 1 7.4 24.28 12.5 41.01 25 82.0 1330. 1330 168 108 125 1250 0.4
8800 Crane 2 845 845 + 60 0 000
If we closely peruse the dimensions of these vehicles it can be clearly seen that they are massive machines of extra-ordinary dimensions. Height of these vehicles ranges from 3.5 meters in some cases to 7 meters. Width ranges from 6 meters to over 12 meters. Their length range from 8 meters to over 14 meters. They have self weight of 1000 tonnes in some cases. Maximum boom length exceeds 75 meters and in some cases touches 150 meters. Their lifting capacity also runs into 100 tonnes. Their speed does not exceed 2 km per hour. The petitioners have also produced photographs of these vehicles which we have perused. From the record, we could gather that these vehicles SCA/11848/2005 40/130 JUDGMENT are used for special purpose for special kind of factories for erection of chimneys, towers, etc. These vehicles are never taken from one place to another on road. It is not possible to drive them on roads without seriously damaging the roads in just one use. It is not possible to drive them on the roads without seriously hampering the traffic and jeopardizing the safety of other vehicles and people. These machines do not move on rubber tyres but are chain mounted. They cannot move at a speed exceeding 2 km per hour. They cannot climb slopes of more than 2 or 3 degrees gradients. They thus cannot negotiate even ordinary slopes or climb simple bridges. They cannot be balanced on even slightly uneven surface or on speed breakers. Their size and weight measurements far exceed those prescribed in Rules 92 and 93 of the Rules. Even in the report of LD Engineering, on which heavy reliance is placed by the respondents, it is suggested that for running on the road, on the chain, rubber padding or rubber shoes should be fitted to avoid damage to the road. This itself means that these vehicles in the present condition cannot be driven on road. The suggestion that the chain should be fitted with rubber padding is bizarre. Suggestion seems to have been made without verifying if for such heavy machinery, rubber paddings are available at all. The manufacturers have stated that no such padding are available or even possible to supply. Further, the whole approach is erroneous. Idea is to find out if the vehicle is adapted to use on road and not find ways to make suggestions for modification in the SCA/11848/2005 41/130 JUDGMENT vehicle by which it can be driven on the road so that it can be categorized as a motor vehicle. In fact, it is stated that these vehicles are never moved from one place to another in its full size and shape. Some of the vehicles are rarely ever moved. Those which are moved are invariably dismantled and and they are transported through trucks. Transportation of one such machine would require at least 10 to 15 trucks and in some cases it would require 60 trucks to carry different parts of these machines.
Considering the massive size of the vehicles, and their self weight as also considering that they are not fitted with rubber tyres, but are fitted with chain mounted vehicles, considering that their speed does not exceed 2 k.ms. per hour and all other attendant facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that from the very face of it, they are machines which cannot be stated to be those even possible for being used on roads. Under no circumstances, these vehicles would satisfy the definition of the term 'motor vehicle' as being adapted for use upon roads. These are special purpose vehicles. They may not be adapted only for use of factory or closed premises, nevertheless they do not fall within the first part of the definition of 'motor vehicle' occurring under section 2(28) of the MV Act.
37. Crawler cranes marked in 'B' category while dealing with individual petitions It can be seen that these crawler cranes are SCA/11848/2005 42/130 JUDGMENT much smaller in size, their dimensions, their weight, length, carrying capacity and these are nowhere comparable to the previous group of crawler cranes which we have dealt with. These cranes though are not mounted on rubber tyres, in our opinion, that would not be conclusive of their not being Motor vehicles. In some cases, the dimension may be just exceeding those maximum permissible under rule 92 or 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. That by itself, would not be sufficient to take them out of the definition of motor vehicles. Taking overall view of the matter, the fact that these vehicles can be used on roads, can be driven from one place to another without either seriously damaging the road or without jeopardizing public safety, looking to their size, shape and width, these vehicles must be held to be those adapted to use on road. Admittedly, they are not special type of vehicles adapted for use only in factory or enclosed premises. That being the position, it must be held that these category of vehicles satisfies the test of the term 'motor vehicle' under section 2(28) of the Act.
38. Crawler cranes marked in "C' category.
Looking to the dimensions of these vehicles, their maximum height, weight, the fact that they cannot be moved easily and freely on the road, we are of the opinion that further inquiry and investigation is necessary before deciding whether they can be treated as motor vehicles. SCA/11848/2005 43/130 JUDGMENT
39. We may recall that in the order passed by the Revisional Authority, which is impugned in Special Civil Application No.11848 of 2005, heavy reliance was placed placed on the report of the LD Engineering College. The report and the approach, both require much to be desired. The report suggest that some vehicle was inspected while lying on the road side. On the basis of such inspection, if it can be so called, report was submitted which was made to include all vehicles. In a matter of this nature where great details and technical requirements would have to be gone into, all vehicles cannot be treated identically. We are of the opinion that each vehicle or at least category of each vehicle shall have to be inspected individually by the RTO Authorities before coming to the conclusion that the vehicle in question can be said to be adapted for use on road bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove. We may also note that in the report, the main thrust was that the vehicles were construction equipment vehicles. Only on that ground, they were treated as motor vehicles. In our view, real inquiry would be whether a vehicle is adapted for use on road and even if so, whether it is a special type of vehicle adapted only for use in factory or in any other enclosed premises. On the basis of findings on these issues, answer whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle or not can be had. We may notice that in the report, finding that the vehicle was chain mounted, it was observed:
"When it has to travel on public roads, it must be equipped with rubber pads on the crawlers, so SCA/11848/2005 44/130 JUDGMENT that the road may not be damaged by the crawlers. The rubber pads should be provided by the manufacturers; same may please be ensured from manufactures."
To our mind the whole approach is erroneous. Without verifying if rubber pads can be provided, above suggestion was made. The manufacturers almost ridiculed the suggestions saying that they have never received such a request. In any case, idea is to ascertain if the vehicle in its present condition can be said to be a motor vehicle and not if it can be turned into one by making modifications and then taxing it.
40. So far as the above mentioned vehicles are concerned, it would be open for the RTO Authorities to inspect the vehicles and thereafter take a view whether such vehicles can be stated to be motor vehicle or not. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, we place this issue before the Revisional Authority who shall have the vehicles inspected through technical experts comprising of Engineers of the Department and after supplying the report of such experts to the concerned petitioners and eliciting their response, final view shall be taken. Such order shall be passed not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is provided that the tax liability of the petitioners involved in these category of cases, including past liability shall depend on final outcome of such exercise. Until such time a fresh decision is rendered by the Deputy Secretary, there shall be status quo with respect to SCA/11848/2005 45/130 JUDGMENT tax collection. In other words, tax if already collected shall not be refunded but from today onwards, there shall not be any further collection of tax till the fresh decision is taken. Once such decision is rendered, either for collection of unpaid tax or refund of tax already collected, the amount shall carry 9% interest as provided in other cases. If for some reasons, under the interim directions of this Court, the concerned vehicle has left the State and the vehicle of similar model is not made available by the petitioner for inspection to the Authorities, it would be open for the Authorities to call for full details of the vehicles, such as, make, use, and other specifications including, dimensions, weight, height, width, capacity, etc. and such other information as may be required. On the basis of such information, the Authorities will take appropriate decision bearing in mind the observations made in this order.
41. After taking care of all crawler cranes involved in these group of petitions, we may now advert to other vehicles involved.
Backhoe loader SCA/11848/2005 46/130 JUDGMENT A backhoe loader, also called as a loader backhoe, digger, or colloquially shortened to backhoe, is a heavy equipment vehicle that consists of a tractor fitted with a shovel/bucket on the ground and a small backhoe on the back. Due to its ( relatively) small size and versatility, backhoe loaders are very common and one of the most popular vehicles in urban engineering and small construction projects such as building small house, fixing urban roads, etc.), small demolitions, light transportation of building materials, powering building equipment, digging holes/excavation, landscaping, breaking asphalt, and paving roads.
History The backhoe loader was invented in the UK in 1953 by Joseph Cyril Bamford, founder of J.C.Bamford (JCB), by equipping a farm tractor with both a backhoe and a front-mounted loading bucket. Although based on a tractor, a backhoe loader is almost never called a tractor when both the loader and the backhoe are permanently attached.
In Britain and Ireland they are commonly referred to simply as JCBs due to the company being the inventor and major supplier. In the United States, they are often referred to as "Backhoes", although the term 'backhoe' only refers to one component.
42. Dumpers: Though there are different models involved in various petitions, we may take the dimension while discussing individually but for SCA/11848/2005 47/130 JUDGMENT present, some core details of Dumpers need reproduction.
Dumper A dumper is a vehicle designed for carrying bulk material, often on building sites. Dumpers are distinguished from dump truck by configuration: a dumper is usually an open 4-wheeled vehicle with the load skip in front of the driver, while a dump truck has its cab in front of the load. The skip can tip to dump the load; this is where the name "dumper" comes from. They are normally diesel powered. A towing eye is fitted for secondary use as a site tractor. Dumpers with rubber tracks are used in special circumstances and are popular in some countries.
Early dumpers had a payload of about a ton and were 2-wheel drive, driving on the front axle and steered at the back wheels.
Modern dumpers have payloads of up to 10 tonnes ( 11 short tons; 98 long tons) and usually steer by articulating at the middle of the chassis (pivot steering).In the 1990s dumpers with swivel skips, which could be rotated to tip sideways, became SCA/11848/2005 48/130 JUDGMENT popular, especially for working in narrow sites such as road works.
It is not in dispute that all these dumpers are mounted on rubber fitted tyres. Their dimensions, weight, etc. do not show that they cannot be driven on road. In fact, by very nature of things, dumpers move earth from one place to another, may be in some cases, within the factory or other such premises. Nevertheless, it cannot be stated that these vehicles are not adapted to use on road or that such types of vehicles are adapted for use only in factory or closed premises. Under the circumstances, dumpers cannot be taken out of the purview of definition of 'motor vehicle'.
43. Loaders: Though different models of loaders are involved, we gathered the basic details which may apply to all those petitions which concern loaders.
Loaders SCA/11848/2005 49/130 JUDGMENT A loader is a heavy equipment machine often used in construction, primarily used to load material ( such as asphalt, demolition debris, dirt, snow, feed, gravel,logs, raw minerals, recycled material, rock, sand, and woodchips) into or onto another type of machinery ( such as a dump truck, conveyor belt, feed-hopper, or railcar).
Heavy equipment front loaders A loader ( also known as : bucket loader, front loader, front, end loader, payloader, scoop loader, shovel, skip loader, and/or wheel loader) is a type of tractor, usually wheeled, sometimes on tracks, that has a front mounted square wide bucket connected to the end of two boom(arms) to scoop up loose material from the ground, such as dirt, sand or gravel, and move it from one place to another without pushing the material across the ground. A loader is commonly used to move a stockpiled material from ground level and deposit it into an awaiting dump truck or into an open trench excavation.
The loader assembly may be a removable attachment or permanently mounted. Often the bucket can be replaced with other devices or tools-for example, many can mount forks to lift heavy pallets or shipping containers, and a hydraulically-opening "clamshell" bucket allows a loader to act as a light dozer or scraper. The bucket can also be augmented with devices like bale grappler for handling large bales of hay or straw.
Large loaders usually have only a front bucket and are called Front Loaders, whereas small loaders SCA/11848/2005 50/130 JUDGMENT tractors are often also equipped with a small backhoe and are called backhoe loaders and loader backhoes or JCBs, after the company that first invented them.
As can be seen from the photographs of such loaders above, these vehicles are fitted on rubber tyres. They are primarily used for earth moving. Looking to the nature of use, mobility of the vehicle, fact that they move on rubber mounted tyres and further looking to their dimensions, it can be seen that such vehicles are adapted for use on road. Here also, admittedly these vehicles are not special type of vehicles which are adapted only for use in a factory or in any other enclosed premises These vehicles are also held to be motor vehicles.
44. Mobile Crane A mobile crane is any mobile crane, i.e. one that is easily moved from one location to another, sometimes while carrying a load. However, in general parlance, a "mobile crane" tends to be a rubber- wheeled crane vehicle.
A mobile crane's advantage is its ease of transportation and its flexibility in handling different types of load or cargo quickly. SCA/11848/2005 51/130 JUDGMENT In Great Britain,prior to 1870 cranes were likely to be fixed in position, either on the side of a dock, on the deck of a ship, or mounted on a railway truck which allowed some movement but only where the railway lines had been constructed.
Appleby Brothers had begun to develop their steam powered railway cranes in the 1860.
Mobile Cranes: For citing examples, dimensions of mobile cranes are taken from Special Civil Application No.15098 of 2005, which are as under:
SrN Type of Unit Model Length Width Height Capacity o Machine No. (MM) (MM) (MM) 1 Escort Crane 1 C8000 11350 2440 2700 8.00 tonnes 1 Escort Crane 1 C8000 11350 2440 2700 8.00 tonnes Here also, we find that the machines move on rubber fitted tyres. It is possible to move from one place to another. Dimensions do not suggest that without seriously jeopardizing public safety or road conditions, it cannot be taken from one place to another. It is not even the case of the petitioners that such vehicles never move on the road. These vehicles are adapted for use on road. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are special types of vehicles adapted only for use in factory or closed premises. These vehicles are, therefore, held to be motor vehicles.
Mobile cranes generally operate via a truss/boom from which end a hook is suspended by wire rope and sheaves. The wire ropes are operated by whatever prime movers the designers have made available, operating SCA/11848/2005 52/130 JUDGMENT through a variety of transmissions. Steam engines, electric motors and internal combustion engines (IC) have all been used. Older cranes' transmissions tended to be clutches. This was later modified when using IC engines to match the steam engines "max torque at zero speed" characteristic by the addition of a hydrokinetic element culminating in controlled torque converters. The operational advantages of this arrangement can now be achieved by electronic control of hydrostatic drives, which for size and other considerations is becoming standard. Some examples of this type of crane can be converted to demolition crane by adding a demolition ball, or to an earthmover by adding a clamshell bucket or a dragline and scoop, although design details can limit their effectiveness.
45. Motor Grader The motor graders is primarily a machine used in the construction and maintenance site like dirt roads and gravel roads, as well as snow and loosen earth. They are used to make the surface in wide flat conditions, so that the asphalt to be placed on. It is a preparing base construction course. It is also used to set native soil foundation pads to finish grade prior to the construction of large buildings. It is used for grading while preparing the road. It is SCA/11848/2005 53/130 JUDGMENT fitted on rubber tyres. Looking to the nature of vehicle, its mobility, dimension, etc. it can easily be seen that the same is possible to be used on road and is often brought on road for moving from one place to another. In fact, loader is predominantly used in construction of road. The same must, therefore, be treated as motor vehicle.
46. Road Roller The road roller refers to roller-compactors in general parlance. There are various kinds of road rollers. It includes, vibratory rollers, towed roller, double drum rollers.
(a) Static Roller The static road roller is widely used in compaction of various works such as gravel, crushed stone, sand-macadam mixture, sandy soil, stabilized soils and bituminous concrete etc. Typical areas of applications are roads, building, industrial yards construction and sites development. It can work with high efficient safety and reliability for good gear shifting, mechanical drive variable ballast and hydraulic steering, exceptional flexibility and high quality.
(b) Vibratory Roller SCA/11848/2005 54/130 JUDGMENT Vibratory road roller can be equipped with single drum or double drum. It is suitable for non-cohesive materials, such as sandy soil, gravel, crushed stones, rock fillings and slightly cohesive soils, designed for large foundation constructions such as high-class highways, mines, dams, airports, harbors, railways.
Road Roller: We do not need lengthy discussion to hold that it is a motor vehicle, by the nature of its use and that it is meant for levelling the road while it is in construction. In the case of Government of AP v. Road Rollers Owners Welfare Association reported in AIR 2005 SC 1403, it has been held to be a motor vehicle. Road Roller is therefore held to be 'motor vehicle'.
47. Fork Lift: These vehicles from the following details can be held to be motor vehicles:-
Forklift Truck SCA/11848/2005 55/130 JUDGMENT A forklift ( also called a lift truck, a high/low, a stacker-truck, trailer loader, sideloader, fork truck, tow-motor or a fork hoist) is a powered industrial truck used to lift and transport materials. The modern forklift was developed in 1920. The forklift has since become an indispensable piece of equipment in manufacturing and warehousing operations.
Design types The following is a list of the more common lift truck types. It is arranged from the smallest type of lift to largest:
* Hand Pallet truck
* Walkie low lift truck ( powered pallet
truck, usually electrically powered) * Rider low lift truck * Towing tractor * Walkie stacker * Rider stacker * Reach truck ( small forklift, designed for small aisles,usually electrically powered, so-named because the forks can extend to reach the load) SCA/11848/2005 56/130 JUDGMENT * Electric counterbalanced truck * IC counterbalanced truck * Sideloader * Telescopic handler * Walkie Order Picking truck * Rider Order Picking truck ( commonly called as "Order Picker"; like a small forklift, except the operator ridesup to the load and transfers it article by article)
48. Dimensions of these machines are mentioned in individual petitions,however, broad details of these machines make them exigible to the tax for being motor vehicles.
Drilling Machine A device, usually motor-driven, fitted with an end cutting tool that is rotated with sufficient power either to create a hole or to enlarge an existing hole in a solid material is also known as driller.
It is a machine for making holes with removal of chips. Drilling machines are used for drilling, boring, countersinking, reaming, and tapping. Several types are used in metalworking: vertical drilling machines, horizontal drilling machines, center- SCA/11848/2005 57/130 JUDGMENT drilling machines, gang drilling machines, multiple spindle drilling machines, and special-purpose drilling machines.
Horizontal drilling machines are usually used to make deep holes, for instances, in axles, shafts, and gun barrels for firearms and artillery pieces.
Center-drilling machines are used to drill centers in the ends of blanks. They are sometimes equipped with supports that can cut off the blank before centering, and in such cases they are called center-drilling machines. Gang drilling machines with more than one drill head are used to produce several holes at one time. Multiple-spindle drilling machines feature automation of the work process. Such machines can be assembled from several standardized, self- contained heads with electric motors and reduction gears that rotate the spindle and feed the head. There are one, two and three sided multiple-spindle drilling machines with vertical, horizontal, and inclined spindles for drilling and tapping. Several dozen such spindles may be mounted on a single machine. Special- purpose drilling machines, on which a limited range operations is performed, are equipped with various automated devices.
Though they are not fitted on rubber tyres but move on chains, nevertheless, they are not immobile or cannot be said to be those which cannot be driven on roads. Their dimensions do not make either impossible or unsafe to use on road. It is not even the case of the petitioners that they never move on roads. These vehicles are, therefore, treated to be motor SCA/11848/2005 58/130 JUDGMENT vehicles.
49.Road Paver (Paving Machine) The road paver(paving machine) is a kind of construction machinery used to paving asphalt, soil stabilized, cement, lime base material etc. It is widely used for the construction of highway.
These vehicles are meant for paving roads. They are fitted with rubber tyres. Their dimensions, their use, mobility, etc. would reveal that they are adapted for use on road. These vehicles are treated to be motor vehicles.
50. Excavator:
(a) Crawler Excavator A crawler excavator (crawler digger) is a designed vehicle to dig or move large objects. It is widely used in construction work, such as digging of trenches, holes, foundations; handling material, moving earth, demolition, dredging, etc. Many other SCA/11848/2005 59/130 JUDGMENT attachments are always adapted to crawler excavator (crawler digger) for boring, ripping, crushing, cutting, lifting, and so on.
(b) Wheel Excavator Wheel excavator (wheel digger) is the combination of the latest advanced hydraulic technology, electrical system and structural engineering.
(c) Compact Excavator The excavator, which is also called digger, is mainly make up of boom, bucket and cab on a rotating platform. There are compact excavators (or mini excavators) and heavy duty excavators, depending on the size. It is usually equipped with loaders and bulldozers, and the wheeled, compact and some medium sized (11 to 18 tone) excavators have a backfill (or dozer)blade.
This kind of engineering machinery and construction equipments are widely used to level or push material back into a hole. In the construction site, its main work is digging of trenches, holes, SCA/11848/2005 60/130 JUDGMENT foundations, brush cutting, lifting and placing of pipes, mining, river dredging etc. They are though not fitted with rubber tyres, move on chains. Looking to the dimensions, their mobility, their use, it cannot be stated that they are not adapted for use on road. These vehicles would be covered by the definition of motor vehicle.
51.Pipe Layer:-
Pipelayers are used to implant pipes into trenches for pipeline construction. Pipes are most commonly used to safely transport materials such as oil,natural gas, gasoline and other materials from their point of origin to a refinery.
Cranes, crawlers and excavators have been known to act as pipelayers, sometimes with the help of pipelayer attachments.
History Pipelaying became an industry when oil refineries started opening up all over the world. A railroad conductor from Titusville, Pennsylvania, Colonel Edwin Drake, built the first commercial oil well. SCA/11848/2005 61/130 JUDGMENT The growth of the auto industry meant the oil market was about to get bigger. Pipelines are attempting new lengths. By 1906, there were 115,000 miles (185,074 km) of pipelines laid.
Pipe Layer: Pipe Layer has following dimensions as given in Special Civil Application No.12680 of 2005:
As of the As per the As per
equipment rules of Motor the rules
Vehicle for
Constru-
ction
Equipment
Vehicle
Height 21.19 ft; 6.43 3.8 meters 4.75
meters meters
Width 11.1. ft; 3.38 2.6 meters 3 mtrs
mtrs
Weight 25 tonnes -- --
Though they are not fitted with rubber tyres,
they move on chain mounted crawler equipment. They
are used for lifting pipes for underground laying,
etc. They are easily possible to be moved on road.
It is not the case of the petitioner that such
vehicles are not driven on road. These vehicles
satisfy the requirement of the term 'motor vehicle'.
52. Drilling Rig:
SCA/11848/2005 62/130 JUDGMENT
A drilling rig is the surface equipment used in the drilling of oil and gas wells. A typical drilling rig is made up of a derrick and a winch for lifting and lowering the drill string, a rotary table to turn the drill pipe, and exgines to drive the winch and rotary tables. Some drilling rigs are designed to be mobile while others are fixed and stationary. There are different types of drilling rigs used both on land and in offshore drilling operations. Mobile rigs are considered to be more cost-effective, particularly in the drilling of offshore exploratory oil wells. Some of the different types of drilling rigs include:
• Land rig • Drilling barge • Jack-up • Submersible rig • Semisubmersible rig • Drillship Conclusion:-
As mentioned in the individual petitions Drilling Rigs fall into Category 'C' necessitating further inquiry before they are held exigible to the tax.
53. Bulldozer (Dozer)
(a) Wheeled Bulldozer SCA/11848/2005 63/130 JUDGMENT The wheel bulldozer, which is also called wheel dozer, is a kind of commonly used construction machinery. The principle of the machine work is to push outfitted dozer blades by essentially tractors, so as to clearing and grading land or paving the roads. These machines use a drive system of military industry technology, which is of big tractive force, high efficiency and good performance. It is with full hydraulic articulated steering and all wheel drive.
(b) Crawler Bulldozer This crawler bulldozer (crawler dozer) has traction mechanism like that of semi-rigid suspension car. Crawler bulldozer is powered by diesel engines, which makes the work energy efficiency, low-pollution. Use:
This kind of machine is a very commonly used earthmoving equipment in the construction site. There is a front-mounted dozer blade which can push solid forward. It can make the construction site to be a level surface. And it is widely used for road construction, water and electricity engineering, farmland leveling, port building, mining and other construction conditions.
SCA/11848/2005 64/130 JUDGMENT It moves on chains. As noted it is used in various activities including for levelling land while carrying out construction activities as as well as in construction of roads. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are not driven on roads for its movement from one place to another. These vehicles also meet the requirement of the term 'motor vehicle'.
54. With the above conclusion, if we take out the petitions separately, following would be the position.
Motor vehicles falling under 'A' Category SCA No.11848 of 2005 with SCA No.2538 of 2009 with SCA No.2539 of 2009 The petitioner company is engaged in the business of refining crude oil and manufacturing of petroleum products at its factory premises. The crawler cranes are chain mounted cranes fitted with a boom of high lift capacity which is ideal for repeated lifting and slewing from a medium to long term set up position. These cranes as such cannot be transported as a single unit and have to be dismantled completely and are loaded on trailer trucks for transportation. These cranes also cannot ply on roads since they are not fitted with wheels and are mounted on chains.
Special Civil Application No. 11848 of 2005 Crawler cranes owned by Reliance SCA/11848/2005 65/130 JUDGMENT Specifications of crawler cranes Sr.N Cran Nos. Hight Width Length Weight Addl. Lifting Spee o. e of Boo Capacity d Nam Cran m e es Heig ht M Ft. M Ft. M Ft. T Kg. Ft. T Kg. Km/h r.
A 1132 01 11.5 37'11" 8.15 26'9" 10.0 33" 624. 6,24, 450' 907 9,07, 1.14 0 6 6 02 020 000 Amer ican Sky Hors e B DEM 01 4.31 14'2" 9 29'6' 10.8 35'5" 309. 3,09, 413' 450 4,50, 1.4 AG 5 70 700 000 CC 2500 C 9320 04 9.27 30'5" 7.75 25'5" 9.27 30'5" 204. 2,04, 260' 225 2,25, 1.29 Amer 75 750 000 ican D 9310 02 9.27 30'5" 6.43 20'7" 8.58 28'2" 182. 1,82, 260' 204 2,04, 1.77 A 17 170 000 Amer ican E TFC 32 5.9 19'5 4.47 14'8" 5.61 18'5" 75 75,0 150' 75 75,0 1.29 280 00 00 F TATA 11 3.32 10'11" 3.05 10' 4.23 13'11 20 20,0 90' 20 20,0 1.82 320 " 00 00 Total 51 Conclusion:-
Serial Nos. A,B,C and D are found to be falling under 'A' category and considering the monstrous size, they cannot be termed as motor vehicles, whereas, the vehicles mentioned at Serial Nos. E and F shall have to be termed under 'C' category, which shall be required to be inquired into before they are held as motor vehicles.
Special Civil Application No. 2539 of 2009 Description of vehicles along with specifications SCA/11848/2005 66/130 JUDGMENT Sr.No Model Name of No. Height- Width- Length- Weight- Boom- Lifting Speed- . Equipm Cranes Meter Meter Meter Kg lenght- Capacit Km/Hr.
ent /Equip. Max.Po y-Kg.
ssible
Boom
Length
Demag Crawler 133008 125000
A 1 7.4 12.5 25 168 0.4
CC 8800 Crane 45 0
Manitowo Crawler
B 1 7.11 10.16 16.05 948080 97.5 750000 1.1
c 18000 Crane
Demag Crawler 108272
C 1 5.5 12.5 20.65 150 650000 1.34
CC 4800 Crane 0
Demag Cc Crawler
D 1 3.4 9 14.5 448968 156 450000 1
2500-1 Crane
Demag Crawler
E 1 3.4 8.5 14 416250 156 400000 1.2
CC 2400 Crane
Kobelco Crawler
F 1 5.95 8.72 14.665 444870 72 350000 0.4/1
CKE 4000 Crane
LIEBHERR Crawler
G 3 3.5 8.2 13.8 400880 156 350000 1.63
LR 1350/1 Crane
LIEBHERR Crawler
H 3 4.3 7.5 13.2 230900 96.2 250000 1.51
LR 1250 Crane
Fushun Crawler
I 13 5.3 6.69 12 256485 91 250000 0.8/1.2
QUY 250 Crane
Kobelco
Crawler
J CKE 5 4.785 7.73 12.235 254915 91.4 227000 0.7/1.1
Crane
2500-2
Kobelco
Crawler 0.66/1.
K CKE- 10 4.77 6.67 10.66 193135 85.3 160000
Crane 1
1800-1F
KOBELCO
Crawler
L CKE 5 3.58 6.31 10.43 165314 76.5 135000 0.9/1.1
Crane
1350-1F
Fushun
QUY Crawler
K 51 6.93 5.06 8 88708 58 80000 1.3
80A/ACC8 Crane
00
TATA
TFC 280
TATA
M CRAWLE 20 5.68 4.5 5.54 75000 45.45 75000 1.11
TFC280
R
CRANE
Telco
EXCAVA 5.5
N EX350 18 3.57 3.19 11.07 35000 N/A
TOR kmph
LCH
HITACHI
EXCAVA 5.5
O ZAXIS- 11 2.95 2.99 9.62 19871 N/A
TOR kmph
200
145
TOTAL
Conclusion:-
Vehicles at serial Nos. A to L fall under 'A' category and are not motor vehicles and also not exigible to the road tax.
Vehicles at serial Nos. K and M fall under 'C' SCA/11848/2005 67/130 JUDGMENT category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
Vehicles at serial Nos. N and O fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
Special Civil Application No. 2538 of 2009 Description of vehicles along with specifications Sr.No Model Name of No. Height- Width- Length- Weight- Boom- Lifting Speed- . Equipm Cranes Meter Meter Meter Kg lenght- Capacit Km/Hr.
ent /Equip. Max.Po y-Kg.
ssible
Boom
Length
TATA
TATA TFC 280
A 4 5.68 4.5 5.54 75000 45.45 75000 1.11
TFC280 Crawler
Crane
Telco
Excavat 5.5
B EX350 22 3.57 3.19 11.07 35000 N/A
or kmph
LCH
HITACHI
Excavat 5.5
C ZAXIS- 9 2.95 2.99 9.62 19871 N/A
or kmph
200
10.9
kmph
BEML Bull
D 5 3 3.415 5.23 16770 N/A (Forwar
D65E-12 Dozer
d) 13.7
kmph
40
Conclusion:-
Vehicle at serial No. A falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
Vehicles at serial Nos. B to D fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
SCA No.908 of 2004 The petitioner company challenged the apprehended SCA/11848/2005 68/130 JUDGMENT illegal detention of 4600 Series 3 Crane with Ringer Attachment. When the machine was proposed to be brought to the State of Gujarat and was entering through Palanpur for a project site at Hazira, they were stopped for collection of taxes. It is the say of the petitioner that the machine is so huge that it requires minimum 66 trailers to keep it in dismantled condition.
Description of the equipment:
350 S.Ton Manitowoc 4600 series 3 crane with Ringer attachment along with all available accessories and spares in ' As is basis'. Ex. Mazagon Dock Limited, Mangalore Yard.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'A' category and is not motor vehicle and also not exigible to the road tax.
SCA 18774 of 2005 Petitioner-Company was engaged in the business of road transport and construction. For the said business, it has its own 4 cranes. The description of four cranes are as under:
Sr.N Vehicles/Model Weight Length Width Height Category o. s (Kgs) (mtrs.) (mtrs.) (mtrs.) 1 8205A03043 1,78,152 8.58 7 4.518 A 2 9310- 1,60,000 8.58 6.274 4.518 A 91026A02636 3 P&H655-6390 56,630 4.6 3 3.3 C 4 9299 AA- 1,42,000 7.58 5.87 4.43 A 880/2266 Conclusion:-
SCA/11848/2005 69/130 JUDGMENT Vehicles at serial Nos.1,2 and 4 fall under 'A' category and are not motor vehicles and also not exigible to the road tax.
Vehicle at serial No.3 falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
Motor vehicles falling under 'B' Category SCA No.6667 of 2004 The machine is known as FE Loader Model 7820 supplied to Kedla Washery Central Coalfield Limited by SPES International Limited,Bulgaria, a distributor of Belaz Trade Corporation, a Russian Company, which supplied it under order dated 25.7.1995. It is the say of the petitioner that the machine was damaged in 1996 in the port premises while unloading and, therefore, the same did not remain operatable. The new machine was substituted in the year 1999 and therefore the damaged machine was being transported to the port of Anand in dismantled condition for the purpose of repairing. When this was brought to the territory of Gujarat, the same was detained by the respondent on 26,5.2004 on the ground of non-furnishing of details, documents or any other proof of payment of road tax.
The machine is a heavy duty loader powered by cummins KTA 19 C 4 stoke turbo charged and inter cool diesel machine having maximum tourcue at 1500 RPM rotation per minute of 2136 HP. The machine is fitted with front bucket having capacity of 3 meters and 7 SCA/11848/2005 70/130 JUDGMENT meters and the capacity of bucket is about 6 cubic meters. Thus, the machine can load about 10 to 11 tonnes of material either coal or earth as the case may be.
All the averments made by the petitioner with regard to the non-use of the machine as well as with regard to the damage caused to it and the use as also the factum of the same being brought to Anand for the purpose of repair are not to be gone into by this Court. It is for the concerned authority to verify and come to a conclusion. It is only for the purpose of deciding as to whether the machine is exigible to the tax.
Conclusion :
This vehicle falls under 'B' category and being motor vehicle is exigible to road tax.
SCA No. 6351 of 2004 The petitioner is carrying out mining work on contract basis by using equipments like Hydraulic Excavator in various parts of the country. It is used in enclosed premises for mining. It is the averment of the petitioner that the equipment does not fall under the definition of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder.
It is further averred that the petitioner received a new contract from Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Limited (Lignite Division) for excavation of Lignite at its mines situated in Khadsaliya village in SCA/11848/2005 71/130 JUDGMENT Bhavnagar. The petitioner transported Hydraulic Excavator CK 300 (L &T make) by loading the same in the trailer bearing registration No HR-69-2254. It is also the say of the petitioner that the equipment was to be used in Gujarat for a limited period of 60 days only. While it was on its way from Chandrapur district of Maharashtra to Bhavnagar, at Chhota Udepur check post in Vadodara district, the trailer along with the said equipment was detained by the R.T.O Inspector at Chhota Udepur check post in Vadodara district on 28.5.2004. The detention order was issued on 28.5.2004 on the ground of non-payment of tax. Specifications:
1. M.V Carring (Excavator machine height the excavator 4.70 i.e. more than permissible height.
2. Width of machine 3.85 i.e. more than palidth.
3. Rear projection 1.6.m.
4. Weight of Excavator as per place 59005 Kgh.
fitted in the machine.
P/L 32500 kg O/L 36504 kg Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'B' category and being motor vehicle is exigible to the road tax.
SCA No.14470 of 2005 The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacturing of cement where limestone and marl are the basic raw-materials needed to be excavated from beneath the earth for which the petitioner purchased SCA/11848/2005 72/130 JUDGMENT various lands for excavation and mining purposes. Within such mining areas there are privately constructed roads of different quality than the normal roads in view of the fact that this heavy machinery is required to be operated within such mining areas. Therefore, heavy earth moving equipments are used in enclosed mining areas or factory premises.
It is also the say that to aid and assist such mining activities, other mining equipments and machineries, such as Dumpers, Loaders and various kinds of Cranes and other special equipments are used. Specifications:-
(A) Equipment at Gop Group of Mines:-
Sr.No Equipment Date of Engine No. Chassis M/C Sr.No. Tax for 1 . Purchase/ No. year 6 weight of months equipment wef Nov.1999 (Rs.) Loader 1 BEML F.E. 15/04/1982 25122789 043 34460-00 Loader G-39325 / 26725 kgs.
2 HM2021 Loader 31/01/1991 RPEM 210833P 20210832 15934-00
(No.5) / 10940 18073
kgs.
3 HM2071 Loader 14/8/1991 25179681 220066 2071006 43206-00
32968 kgs
4 HM 2021 Loader 13/07/1995 JYEM03226 211766F 20211804 15934..00
Z BAR (No.8) / 10940 2
kgs.
5 HM 2021 Loader 31/03/1995 CYEM- 211714-F 20211672 15934.-00
Z BAR (No.7) / 10940 031489
Kgs.
TOTAL(A) 126468-00
(B) Equipments at Plant at Digvijaygram:-
1 Tertex 71-21 28/12/1979 AL 7432 L 380 H 2378 15934-00 Loader(No.2 10940 kgs ) 2 Terx 2021 31/01/1991 RPEM18174 210832P 20210831 15934.00 Loader(No.4 10940 kgs ) SCA/11848/2005 73/130 JUDGMENT 3 HM Loader 29/02/1996 BXEMO34139 EE 066 20212059 15934-00 2021 Z Bar 10940 kgs.
(No.8)
4 HM Loader 30/03/1996 DXE EE 088 20212083 15934-00
2021 Z Bar 10940 kgs. M034576
(No.9)
5 Terx 72-71 25/09/1980 AL-8910 L-491 H 2484 15934-00
Loader
(No.3)
6 Coles Crane 28/09/1985 211388 - 21585 26784-00
19660 kgs.
Total(B) 106454-00
Grand Total 232922-00
(A+B)
(C) List of Dumpers scrapped & sold at Mines:
Sr.No. Equipment Date of Engine No. Chassis No. M/C Sr.No. Purchase/ weight of equipment 1 HM Tarex R-35 Unit 29/10/1982 25130178 H5236F No.H.5240 27500 kgs.
2 HM Tarex R-35 Unit 29/10/1982 25130181 H 5241 F
No.H5241 27500 kgs.
3 HM Tarex R 35 Unit 02/11/1982 25130176 H 5243 F
No.H5242 27500 kgs.
4 BEML Haulpack 01/12/1981 25122984 LCF 12490
CFA 1229 21888 kgs. CFA15AT
(D) Scrapped Equipment at Plant since 1998:
Sr.No. Equipment Date of Engine No. Chassis No. M/C Sr.No. Purchase/ weight of equipment 1 WA-200-1 18/03/1994 Z103750027 3 AG G 10324 Loader -25911 10324 (No.5) 2 WA-200-1 26/05/1994 Z- 30610333 G 10333 Loader 10940 kgs 103750034-
(No.6) 25198
3 P & H Crane 19680 kgs 571922 1358 8475
(Truck
Mounted)
M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited, Earth Moving
Equipment Division, Madras, is manufacturing Heavy
Earth moving machineries for use in mining industries.
Rear dumper of 25 Tons, 35 Tons, 50 Tons, 85 Tons, capacities and Loaders of 5.74/3.1-3.4 Cu.m. For off SCA/11848/2005 74/130 JUDGMENT highway application are being manufactured by it. Model and capacities are as under:-
1025 [R25]- 25 Tons.
1035[R35] - 35 Tons
773B - 50 Tons
777C - 85 Tons
2071[72-71]- 5.74 Cu.M.[Bucket capacity]
966E - 3.1-3.4 Cu.M.
Conclusion:-
All the above vehicles fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
SCA No.3147 of 2004 The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having Class "AA", Government approved contractors registered for business of mining work in the State of Gujarat. The petitioner has averred that equipments in question are not adapted for use upon roads and they are manufactured undisputedly as off-road, off-highway equipments adapted to be used only at the mining sites. It is the say of the petitioner that nearly 40 equipments used for the purpose of mining activities were seized on 25.3.2000 at five different checking depots. It is contended that these equipments were used at the site but they are not leviable to be charged.
Equipment Manufacturer Gross Weight Unladen Weight SCA/11848/2005 75/130 JUDGMENT 773B Dumper Hindustan Motors 84,020 kmgs 33,665 kmgs Ltd., 1035 Dumper Hindustan Motors 60,160 kgms 27,500 kgms Ltd., BH40 Rear Bharat Earth Dump Truck movers Ltd.
Equipment Length Width Height
773B Dumper 9185 mm 5076 mm 4077 mm
1035 Dumper 8127 mm 4150 mm 4015 mm
BH40 Rear Dump 7835 mm 3612 mm 4100 mm
Truck
Conclusion:-
773B Dumper,1035 Dumper and BH40 Rear Dump Truck fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
SCA No.5953 of 2004 The petitioner company is carrying on business of motor vehicles. Inspector of RTO, check post Songadh, according to the petitioner, had halted the machine for payment of the road tax. The said action has been challenged as the tax was demanded from the date of purchase i.e August, 2001 with penalty pursuant to certain circulars. According to the petitioner, the paver machine is not used or kept for use on roads and is manufactured undisputedly as off-road and off- highway equipment adapted to be used only for the construction of roads.
Specifications:-
Prime Mover:
Ashok Leyand ALU 370 develops 90 HP @ 2000-rpm, SCA/11848/2005 76/130 JUDGMENT water-cooled electric start or equivalent.
Four steering bogey wheels of size 550 mm Dia x 275 mm are mounted on equalized front axle. The Rear tyre 9.00x 20-04 Nos. with equalizer beam ensures a good adherence even on the most irregular grounds.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'B' category and being motor vehicle is exigible to the road tax.
SCA No.1917 of 2004 It is the say of the petitioner that the petitioner was awarded a contract of Gujarat Industries Power Company Limited at its Vastan Mines for the work of Removal of Overburden/Lignite Excavation Work at Mangrol, district: Surat by use of heavy earth moving machinery. The petitioner originally acquired 9 (numbers) of Euclid Rear Dumber from the National Hydraulic Power Corporation Limited at Faridabad. They were used for carrying out the work at Jiral Lignite Mine in District Badmer and as this contract at District: Surat was awarded to the petitioner, it required four dumpers, which were loaded in trailers and while entering Gujarat through District: Palanpur, they were demanded tax and penalty. It is the say of the petitioner that in no manner, the equipments could be called motor vehicles and they not being vehicles are not exigible to road tax.
Description of Vehicles (Specifications) SCA/11848/2005 77/130 JUDGMENT Sr.No. Lot of Eqpt.as per Description of Qty. Sale value of Auction catalogue equipment with P.I. (Nos.) equipment (Rs.) No. 1 17 to 25 Rear Dumper. 9 Nos. 51,00,000 Euclid R-35 P.I. No.C-0630-
002,005,007,008,0 10,014,017 to 019 Less EMD Adjusted 12,75,000 Amount deposited excluding taxes & levies 38,25,000 Specification:
Type of Engine Type Aspirat Gross Net No. of Bore Displa Max. Startin Transm Vehicle Model ion power power cylinde &strok cemen torque g ission rs e t Tata Cumm- 4-cycle Turbo- 298kW 283 6 0140 x 14 lts. 185 Electr- Allison Hitac- ins charge (400 (380 152(m Nm @ ic CLT hi NTA d HP) @ HP) @ m) 1400 751.
Dump- 14C 2100 2100 rpm(S- Auto-
er rpm(S rmp(I- AE matic
AE SO 1995) planet
1995) 9249) ary
type
transm
ission
Conclusion:-
All the vehicles shown in the charts above fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
SCA No. 14448 of 2005 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of cement which is a commodity essential and necessary to the general public and, it has mining lease over various areas for which it requires special heavy earth moving machinery for operating within these areas. These areas are solely used by the petitioners and its employees and contractors and there is a strict prohibition for any other member of the public from entering or using the said area. During the SCA/11848/2005 78/130 JUDGMENT course of mining operations, heavy earth moving equipments are used having the latest mining technology.
To aid and assist such mining activities, other mining equipments and machineries such as Dumpers, Loaders and various kinds of Cranes and other Special Equipments are used.
SPECIFICATIONS:-
SR. Eqpt. Mak Sr.No Amb Tare Gros Year Date Lan Engin Scrappe Last Tax No. Model e . uja Wt. s Wt. of of ded e HP d or in paid Sr.No (KG) Purc Com Cost used . hase m.
1. Dump BEM 2170 HPK 3157 5364 1985 3/11/ 266 355 Scrappe Rs.1344 er L 1 2 0 85 357 d 0/-Mar LW35 0 2004
2. Dump BEM 4042 HPK 3157 5364 1985 8/2/8 266 355 Scrappe Rs.1344 er L 4 2 0 6 357 d 0/-Mar LW35 0 2005
3. Dump BEM 4547 HPK 3157 5364 1988 22/1/ 313 355 Scrappe Rs.1344 er L 5 2 0 88 951 d 0/-Mar LW35 0 2006
4. Dump BEM 4610 HPK 3157 5364 1988 21/ 313 355 Scrappe Rs.1344 er L 6 2 0 11/88 951 d 0/-Mar LW35 0 2007
5. Dump BEM 4922 HPK 3157 5364 1989 13/2/ 337 355 Scrappe Rs.1344 er L 7 2 0 90 064 d 0/-Mar LW35 0 2008
6. Dump BEM 5535 G1 3157 5364 1992 4/3/9 463 355 Scrappe Rs.1344 er L 2 0 2 372 d 0/-Mar LW35 0 2009
7. Dump BEM 5547 G4 3157 5364 1992 18/4/ 463 355 Scrappe Rs.1344 er L 2 0 92 372 d 0/-Mar LW35 0 2010
8. Dump BEM 5592 G6 3157 5364 1992 12/6/ 463 355 Scrappe Rs.1344 er L 2 0 92 372 d 0/-Mar LW35 0 2011
9. Loade HM 2071 2071 3800 4800 1988 26/12 444 380 Scrappe Rs r 0068 -1 0 0 /88 202 d 15140/-
HM20 2 Mar
71 2004
10. Loade HM 2071 2071 3800 4800 1991 30/9/ 588 380 Scrappe Rs
r 0031 -2 0 0 91 658 d 15140/-
HM20 2 Mar
71 2004
11. Loade HM 2071 GP2 3800 4800 1992 24/9/ 613 380 Scrappe Rs.3188
r 0088 0 0 92 938 d 0/-
HM20 0 28.3.20
71 07
12. Loade HM 2071 GP3 3800 4800 1992 24/12 655 380 Scrappe Rs.3188
r 0093 0 0 /92 427 d 0/-
HM20 2 28.3.20
71 07
SCA/11848/2005 79/130 JUDGMENT
13. Loade HM 2071 GP4 3800 4800 1993 28/6/ 657 380 Scrappe Rs.3188
r 0103 0 0 93 800 d 0/-
HM20 0 28.3.20
71 07
14. Loade HM 2071 GP7 3800 4800 1994 2/3/9 669 380 In use Rs.3280
r 0110 7 0 0 4 760 0/-
HM20 0 31.3.11
71
15. Loade HM 2071 GP8 3800 4800 1996 27/12 707 380 In use Rs.3280
r 0140 0 0 /95 500 0/-
HM20 0 31.3.11
71
16. Loade HM 2071 GP9 3800 4800 1996 25/7/ 707 380 Scrappe Rs.3280
r 0153 0 0 96 500 d 0/-
HM20 0 31.3.11
71 (DD
168236
dtd.31.
3.2010.
17. Loade HM 2071 GP1 3800 4800 1996 4/11/ 707 380 In use Rs.3280
r 0157 0 0 0 96 500 0/-
HM20 0 31.3.11
71
18. Loade HM 2021 HM3 1022 1094 1996 16/4/ 250 112 Scrappe Rs.1120
r 1918 0 2 96 000 d 0/-
HM20 0 31.3.11
21 (DD
168236
dtd.31.3
.2010
19. Loade HM 2021 HM4 1022 1094 1996 12/10 250 112 In use Rs.1120
r 1968 0 2 /96 000 0/-
HM20 0 31.3.11
21
20. Loade HM 2021 HM5 1094 1166 1997 8/11/ 250 112 In use Rs.1120
r 2304 0 2 97 000 0/-
HM20 0 31.3.11
21
21. Case L&T ULB0 CAS 1992 1992 80 Scrappe paymen
580-3 037 E-1 d t details
not
availabl
e
22. Motor BEM 6278 MGR 1265 2575 1997 29/10 590 145 In use paymen
Grade L 0 0 /97 292 t details
r 1 not
availabl
e
23. Crane TELC -- TAC1 1284 2200 1992 1992 134 76 In use Rs.1280
TAC20 O 0 0 131 0/-
0 31.03.1
1
24. Crane TELC 1080 TAC2 1284 2200 1996 1996 142 76 In use Rs.1280
TAC20 O 78 0 0 080 0/-
0 31.03.1
1
25. Crane TELC 1110 TAC3 1284 2200 1996 1996 142 76 In use Rs.1280
TAC20 O 79 0 0 080 0/-
0 31.03.1
1
26. Crane TELC 1120 TAC4 1284 2200 1996 1996 142 76 In use Rs.1280
TAC20 O 82 0 0 080 0/-
0 31.03.1
1
SCA/11848/2005 80/130 JUDGMENT
27. Crane TELC 1233 TAC5 1284 2200 1996 1996 142 76 In use Rs.1280
TAC20 O 93 0 0 080 0/-
0 31.03.1
1
28. Crane TELC 1124 TAC6 1284 2200 1996 1996 142 76 In use Rs.1280
TAC20 O 95 0 0 080 0/-
0 31.03.1
1
29. Crane ESC ESC 8450 1600 1985 1985 100 42 Scrappe Rs.8280
C ORT ORT- 0 000 d /- on
8000 2 0 Mar 03
30. Sweep TEN 8001 TEN 4068 5000 1996 1996 287 45 As the
ing NAN 207 NAN 100 payment
M/c T T-1 0 is made
with the
31. Sweep TEN 8001 TEN 4068 5000 1996 1996 287 45 other
ing NAN 908 ANT 100 commer
M/c T 2 0 cial
800D vehicle
32. Fork GOD 5400 8400 1999 1999 850 56 therefor
Lift REJ 000 e
individua
33. Fork GOD 5400 8400 1999 1999 850 56 l details
Lift REJ 000 is not
34. Fork GOD 5400 8400 1999 1999 850 56 available
Lift REJ 000
35. Fork VOLT 800
Lift AS 000
Conclusion:-
All the vehicles shown in the chart above fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
SCA No.15098 of 2005 It is the say of the petitioner that the petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of cement, which is an essential commodity and necessary for general public for which it requires limestone and marl, which are basic raw materials and can be obtained through excavation from beneath the earth. For carrying out the said activities, the petitioner purchased various lands and all these mining lease are contiguous to the factory premises of the petitioner company as specially designated, earmarked and fenced areas where the general public has no accessibility, SCA/11848/2005 81/130 JUDGMENT nor it is permissible to any member of the public to enter therein. The specially designated, earmarked and fenced areas are exclusively for the employees and contractors of the petitioner. The petitioner also has averred that during the mining operations earth moving equipments are used for the purpose of mining with the latest technology and it requires several types of heavy earth moving equipments, which includes dumpers, trailers, shovels, cranes etc. Aggrieved by the notice issued by respondent for non-registration and for payment of tax on these equipments, present petition is preferred.
Details of Mining Machinery
Sr.No. Type of Make/ Length Width Height Capacity Date of Remarks
machine Mod Commi
ssion
1 Dumper HM 1035 8140 3950 3950 35 Tonnes 12.12. In Use 1985 2 Dumper HM 1035 8140 3950 3950 35 Tonnes 16.12. Not in use 1985 3 Dumper HM 1035 8140 3950 3950 35 Tonnes 31.03. In use 1987 4 Dumper HM 1035 8140 3950 3950 35 Tonnes 31.03. In use 1987 5 Dumper HM 1035 8140 3950 3950 35 Tonnes 26.03. Not in use 1991 6 Dumper HM 1035 8140 3950 3950 35 Tonnes 03.11. In use 1991 7 Dumper HM 1035 8140 3950 3950 35 Tonnes 29.01. In use 1992 8 Dumper HM 1035 8140 3950 3950 35 Tonnes 30.03. In use 1993 9 Dumper HM 1035 8140 3950 3950 35 Tonnes 19.12. In use 1994 10 Loader HM 2071 10550 3518 4121 5.74Cu met 03.12. In use 1986 11 Loader HM 2021 5817 2362 3022 1.53Cu met 20.10. In use 1989 12 Loader HM 2021 5817 2362 3022 1.53Cu met 02.06. In use 1991 13 Escort Crane C 8000 11350 2440 2700 8.00Tonnes 14.05. In use 1985 14 Escort Crane C 8000 11350 2440 2700 8.00Tonnes 12.01. In use 1997 HM Make 1035 Dumpers in (Qty Nine Nos.) SCA/11848/2005 82/130 JUDGMENT Tyre Size : 18.00x 25x 32 Ply Rating Weight with Axle: Front - 19070 Kg Rear- 37745 Kg Total- 56815 Kg Supplier : Hindustan Motors Ltd.
Tiruvallur (T.N.) Conclusion:-
All the above vehicles fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to tax.
SCA No.6180 of 2004 The petitioner is engaged in the business of laying down the pipelines and has acquired several pipeline layer machines. M/s. Corrtech International Private Limited hired several machines from the petitioner and, therefore, several machines were brought in Gujarat State for the first time. The two machines were mounted on the motor vehicle bearing Registration No.HR 38 E 3632 which arrived at Dahod check post. The machines were detained at Dahod check post by RTO authorities demanding tax.
It is the say of the petitioner that five different petitions came to be filed before this Court, being Special Civil Application Nos.321,703,704,1023 and 1304 of 2004 since various pipeline layers were hired by one company. M/s. Corrtech International Private Limited, is a company registered at Ahmedabad doing the business of laying down the pipelines and also has expertise in ante- corrosion system in the gas and oil pipelines. Various pipeline layer machines were sought to be brought in Gujarat State which are owned by the petitioner. SCA/11848/2005 83/130 JUDGMENT It is the say of the petitioner that tax cannot be levied on any of the vehicles as the same are not used in the public place.
Specifications:
PKG QTY Description Marks Gross WT Dimensions Invoice No. of Goods 1 1 Unit Complete KIWAH/173 12800 KG0 L156"X KIWAH/177 Unit of Used W124"X SIDEBOOM H84"
(Pipelayer) CAT-D6 Origin USA S/N 9U3934 Make 1983 1 1 No. Standard KIWAH/173+ 940 KG L205"XW49" KIWAH/177 BOOM 177/A XH7"
attachment for D-6 SIDEBOOM (Pipelayer) 1 1 Unit Complete KIWAH/173 18300 KG L168"XW130 KIWAH/177 Unit of Used "XH85"
SIDEBOOM(Pi pelayer) CAT-
D7 Origin
USA S/N
3T23164
Make 1986
1 1 No. Standard KIWAH/173+ 1320 KG L205"X KIWAH/177
BOOM 177/A W48"XH7"
attachment
for D-7
SIDEBOOM
(Pipelayer)
1 1 Unit Complete KIWAH/177/A 19645 KG L196"XW122 KIWAH/177
Unit of used "XH94"
SIDEBOOM(Pi
pelayer) CAT-
D8 Origin
USA S/N
2U14391
Make 1985
1 1 No. Standard KIWAH/173+ 1460 KG L252"X KIWAH/177
BOOM 177/A W56"XH6"
attachment
for D-8
SIDEBOOM
(Pipelayer)
1 1 No. Standard KIWAH/173+ 4540 KG L53"W24"X KIWAH/177
COUNTERWE 177/A H34"
IGHT
attachment
for D-8
SIDEBOOM(Pi
pelayer)
2 2 Crates Containing KIWAH/173+ 485.5 KG L56.5"XW38" KIWAH/173
Misc. 177/A 77/5KG X32.5" KIWAH/177
Accessories 560 KG L31.5"X
for the W34"XH21"
SIDEBOOMS(
Pipelayers)
D6, D7 & D8
SCA/11848/2005 84/130 JUDGMENT
9 59565 KG
Conclusion:-
All the vehicles shown in the chart above fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
SCA No. 6179 of 2004 The petitioner is engaged in the business of laying down pipelines and has acquired several pipeline layer machines.
M/s. Corrtech International Private Limited hired several machines from the petitioner, and, therefore, several machines were brought in Gujarat State for the first time at different times and places.
Two machines were mounted on the motor vehicle bearing Registration No.HR 38 E 3632 in the first week of January 2004 which arrived at Dahod Check post on January 8, 2004 at 12.00 p.m. The machines were imported to India in January, 2001 and were used in Panipat all throughout before moving to Gujarat State.
Machine D-6 arrived in Gujarat through Amirgadh check post in January, 2001 and remained till June, 2001. Machine D-7 and D-8 arrived in Gujarat in January, 2004 through Deesa check post.
Amount of penalty imposed for D-6 was Rs.13,682/-. For D-8 amount of Rs.1 lakh is deposited in the Court but is not yet withdrawn. The vehicles left Gujarat on May, 13, 2004. Taxes on these vehicles are not paid.
SCA/11848/2005 85/130 JUDGMENT Description of Vehicles D-6 is a complete unit of side boom(pipe layer) caterpillar- Origin USA S.No.9U3934, manufactured in 1983 and purchased by M/s.Kiwah Welding & Construction Co. on dated 14.1.2001.
D-7 is a complete unit of used side boom (pipe layer)caterpillar-Origin USA S.No.3T23164, manufactured in 1986 and purchased by M/s.Kiwah on dated 14.1.2001.
D-8 is a complete unit of used side boom(pipe layer) caterpillar-Origin USA S.No.2U14391, Manufactured in 1985 and purchased by Kiwah Welding & Construction Co. on 23.1.2001 Conclusion:-
All the above vehicles fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
SCA No.11283 of 2009 The petitioner company undertakes several infrastructure projects including laying of gas pipelines. For this purpose the petitioner company has acquired various machineries and for the purpose of its ongoing projects, the petitioner required caterpillar machine which is used for laying of pipelines. The petitioner purchased in all 13 machineries from DCOM Systems Ltd., which included 7 nos. of pipe layers including CAT D7 Pipe Layer Sr. No.9620 and other machines bearing Nos.11192,11199,7992, 7824, 5249 and also CAT 572G pipe layer Sr.Nos.40U, 490 and 40U 788 under one invoice which was purchased on January 15, 2009. The SCA/11848/2005 86/130 JUDGMENT machine CAT D7 Pipe Layer was loaded in the motor vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-01-AY-8307 which is a multiple axle transport vehicle. The said machines arrived in the said motor vehicle at Thavar check post of the Regional Transport Authority. The machines were detained by the RTO authorities for non-payment of tax.
Aggrieved by the notice issued by respondent for non-registration and for payment of tax on these equipments, present petition is preferred.
Detailed description of machines is not available.
Conclusion:-
These vehicles fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
SCA No.14454 of 2004 It is the say of the petitioner that M/s. Chaudhary Ship Breakers Yard purchased one Crawler Crane Rapier NCK 3-05 bearing Sr.No.3625 with all accessories on 16.1.1997 from M/s. Maharashtra Erectors Ltd. Since it closed its unit of ship breaking in 1999, the vehicle was lying idle at plot No.90 from 1999 till today. M/s.Chaudhary Ship Breakers chose to sell all its machinery. It is further the say of the petitioner that said machinery including the crawler machine was lying unused in the premises at Plot No.90 Ship Breaking Yard, Sosia.
Request was made by the petitioner to respondent SCA/11848/2005 87/130 JUDGMENT No.3 for accepting the status of non-use of the said crawler crane from 1997 to 1999 by an application since the vehicle was used in the private premises from 1999 to 2005. The petitioner stated that the office of the respondent No.3 has inspected the said crawler crane at the site, for verification of the said application of non-use. It is the say of the petitioner that crawler mounted chain driven cranes or pneumatic tyre mounted cranes owned by the ship breaking units are exclusively used within the four walls of the ship breaking plots. Description of vehicle:-
Crawler Crane Rapier NCK 3-05 bearing Sr. No. 36295 with all accessories.
No specification of this particular vehicle is available.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'B' category and being motor vehicle is exigible to the road tax.
SCA No.4704 of 2007
1. This is a petition challenging the action of the respondent State, where the petitioner is directed to get the equipment used within enclosed premises, registered with the authority from retrospective effect.
2. As averred by the petitioner it is a public SCA/11848/2005 88/130 JUDGMENT Limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of Clinker and Cement products. The petitioner has cement plant at different establishments. It uses dumpers of the category of "HAULPAK Dumper Rear Drum-35" which does not require registration if the same is deployed in the private premises. Therefore, by way of this writ, a request is made to restrain the respondent from initiating any coercion recovery. The various vehicles have been numbered with the details of tax recovered and made recoverable.
3. It needs to be noted that there are neither any of the detail described nor any brochures or photographs to indicate the nature of vehicles. There is neither any affidavit-in-reply nor any matter placed on record by the State in this petition.
The total number of vehicles involved is not revealed from the averments made in the petition and from the details that can be cogent from the Internet.
"Google, Wikipedia".
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under under 'B' category and being motor vehicle is exigible to the road tax.
Special Civil Application No. 8620 of 2002
1. The petitioner is a partnership firm and "AA"
class Government Approved Contractors engaged in the business of mining work in the State of Gujarat. The SCA/11848/2005 89/130 JUDGMENT present petition is to challenge the action on the part of the respondents Nos 1 and 2 in treating the Earth Moving Equipments used by the petitioner firm at its mining site as Motor Vehicles. It is the say of the petitioner that the equipments do not fall within the purview of definition of "motor vehicles"
contained in Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act for carrying out the contract awarded by Gujarat Industries Power Co. Ltd for the work of removal of Lignite Excavation at Mangrol, Dist Surat by using Heavy Earth Moving Machine (HEMM). The equipment for work of excavation was as specified in contractual term and it was diesel operated Hydraulic Excavator of not less than 3.2 cu. Mtr bucket capacity. All mining equipments are described in the petition in the following manner:
Equipment/ Model width Axle weight Dumper Model Meters Tyres size Front axle Rear axle BEML BH-40 4.300 18.00X33 22,635 45,955 BEML BH-44 4.300 18.00X33 24,328 49,392 BEML LW/BH-50 4.140 21.00X35 26,509 53,025 BEML BH-60 4.400 24.00X25 32,287 65,553 BEML LW/BH35 3.760 18.00X25 17,165 36,475 HM 1035 3.660 18.00X25 20,325 40,345 These vehicles are vehicles of special type to be used for removal of lignite/overburden and is used in a private place for the mining site being enclosed by wire fencing. Therefore,it is urged that these vehicles are not exigible to tax,as it is not falling under the definition of "motor vehicles". Resultantly, by this petition request is made to quash and set aside the communication from the respondents for SCA/11848/2005 90/130 JUDGMENT initiating compulsive action under the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. As can be noted from the pictures as described in photographs and the brochures, equipments fall under the heading of the dumpers and the dumpers are designed to carry in bulk material often on building sites.
Conclusion:-
All the above vehicles fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
SCA No. 17993 of 2006 This petitioner challenges the action on the part of the respondent authority in not releasing the excavator and it also challenges the demand of tax from August 1995 on the ground that this is not a motor vehicle as defined, therefore, the prayer is sought. There is complete absence of details of the total number of vehicles involved. The brochure, its photographs or other description for verification are found absent on record. The only reference is to the photographs of the vehicles being excavators downloaded from the website as well as given by the State during the course of the hearing.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'B' category and being motor vehicle is exigible to the road tax.
SCA/11848/2005 91/130 JUDGMENT
SCA No. 12394 of 2006
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged action of the respondent authorities in requiring the Earth Moving Equipments used by the petitioner firm and its equipments used by the petitioner firm at its mining site by insisting on its registration and payment of tax.
2. The petitioner is a proprietary firm engaged in excavation work at the site of Vastan Mines and for the work under Contract these vehicles are needed within the enclosed premise. As can be seen, these are earth moving equipments, rear dumpers known as Haul Pack.
3. The total number of vehicles are 15, specifications of which are given as under:-
Sr.N Name of equipment & its manufacturer Details of identification o.
1 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No.25289174 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No: BEML BH 35-2-143 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
2 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No.:25287215 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No:BEML BH 35-2-144 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
3 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No:25289259 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No: BEML BH 35-2-155 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
4 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No:25288360 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No: BEML BH 35-2-156 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
5 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No:25284173 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No: BEML BH 35-2-158 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
6 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No:25289172 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No: BEML BH 35-2-161 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
SCA/11848/2005 92/130 JUDGMENT 7 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No:25290493 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No: BEML BH 35-2-162 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
8 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No:25289261 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No: BEML BH 35-2-163 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
9 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No:25288314 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No: BEML BH 35-2-164 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
10 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No:25290488 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No: BEML BH 35-2-169 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
11 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No:25290489 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No: BEML BH 35-2-170 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
12 Haulpack Dumpers Engine No:25289596 Off-Highway Mining Equipment Chasis No: BEML BH 35-2-171 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
13 HGV Dumper Chasis No:210 M-2821 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Engine No:25293891 14 HGV Dumper Chasis No:210 M-2822 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Engine No:25292562 15 HGV Dumper Chasis No:210 M-2830 Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Engine No:25294646 Conclusion:-
All the above vehicles fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to tax.
SCA No.14451 of 2005
1. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 26th March 2003 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 25/2000 rendered in Revision Application No. 13/03 passed by respondent No. 2.
2. It is averred that the Heavy Earth Moving Equipments and other Specialised Equipments used in enclosed mining areas or factory premises cannot be compulsorily registered under Section 39 of the Motor SCA/11848/2005 93/130 JUDGMENT Vehicles Act, nor are they exigible to tax under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 in as much as they do not fall under the scope and ambit of " Motor Vehicles" as defined under section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act. An affidavit in reply filed in this petition denies all averments and necessitate that these vehicles fall within the definitions of Motor Vehicles Act and construction equipments vehicles, which are as under :
1025 (R25) - 25 Tons
1035 (R35) - 35 Tons
773B - 50 Tons
777C - 85 Tons
2071 (72-71) - 5.74 Cu. M. (Bucket Capacity )
966E - 3.1-3.4Cu.M
By way of certificate issued by the M/s
Hindustan Motors Ltd. It needs to be noted that in the petition it is insisted that all the equipments consist being specialised equipments they are neither adapted nor suitable to be used on public roads. The details are indicative of the vehicles being dumper/loader as also hydrolic excavator etc. Conclusion:-
All the above vehicles, fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to tax.
SCA No. 15284 of 2003
1. The petitioner seeks to challenge legality of the order passed by the respondent No. 1 in Appeal SCA/11848/2005 94/130 JUDGMENT No. 52/2003 holding that the vehicle would be liable to tax from 1st August 1995, or from the date of purchase, whichever is later. The petitioner is engaged in the business of excavation at Udaipur. It purchased one Hydraulic Excavator in the year 1997 for undertaking the assignments of excavation in mining and mineral industries.
2. The petitioner when was awarded contractual assignment for excavation at Unjha at Gujarat, the excavator was sent in a trailer and at Shamalaji Check Post, vehicle was seized and detained. The outstanding dues under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act were sought to be recovered. It is challenged that the excavator is not a Motor vehicle. Affidavit-in-
reply of the State has been filed denying all averments and the vehicles since fall under the Motor Vehicles Act is liable for tax under the provisions of Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1968.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'B' category and being motor vehicle is exigible to the road tax.
SCA No. 16736 of 2003
1. The petitioner challenges action of the State in demanding the tax by classifying the hydraulic excavator of the year 1994, as not a motor vehicle but it gets plied with the help of chains and not wheels. As there was no contractual assignment for SCA/11848/2005 95/130 JUDGMENT excavation at Hadol, Taluka Idar, the petitioner sent excavator in a trailer which was caught at Songadh.
At the insistence it was to make a payment of the outstanding dues from October 1994 till September 2003. It is insisted that the hydraulic excavator in question is not a motor vehicle nor can the respondent tax the same for the period of nine years. An undertaking is also given by the petitioner in Civil Application No. 514/2004 moved in this petition that if the same is determined as motor vehicle, it shall be liable to pay entire amount to tax.
2. Affidavit- in-reply is filed by emphasising that excavator falls within the definition of Motor Vehicles Act under section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, is liable to tax under the provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. The brochure described is suggestive that Ex-400 Hydraulic excavator has travel speed as low as 0 to 3.4 km per hour.
Conclusion:-
Its gradability, maximum traction force, its weight capacity and width are indicative that it falls under 'B' category and being motor vehicle is exigible to the road tax.
Special Civil Application No. 7384 of 2004
1. The petitioner, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the SCA/11848/2005 96/130 JUDGMENT Circular dated 15th July 2003 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Gujarat State, wherein it has prayed for appropriate direction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive or penal action on basis of checking memo and demand notice.
2. The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on the business of construction. Its contraction work necessitated bringing of excavation being TATA Hitachi Excavator , Model Ex 200 LC bearing Chassis No. H 0614231057 from M/s Telco Dealers Leasing and Finance Company Ltd, Goa.
3. While bringing this excavator, which was checked,tax was collected on the vehicle to the tune of Rs 2,28,353/- for the period from February 1996 to July 2004.
4. On the ground that this is a Motor Vehicle nor its being used outside the enclosed premise, the urge is made to forbear the respondent authority from taking any coercive steps in demanding the tax on this vehicle.
5. Affidavit- in- reply filed by the State denies all averments and insists that excavator is a motor vehicle which is exigible to tax.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'B' category and being motor vehicle is exigible to the road tax. SCA/11848/2005 97/130 JUDGMENT Special Civil Application No. 21886 of 2005
1. The petitioner company engaged in the business activity of construction of project related to infrastructure, challenges the action of the State of Gujarat demanding tax on excavator, motor grader etc. which are the equipments in question belonging to the petitioner company.
2. It is the say of the petitioner that different vehicles were imported and different bills of entry were filed in the year 1999. These vehicles were brought from Mumbai to Faridabad in trailer and they were stopped at Gujarat Border for 40 days. By this petition it is requested to quash and set aside Memo Nos 1137338, 1137339 and 1137340 dated 16th May 2005 and the Notices dated 25th May 2005 and the order dated 29th June 2005 and 22nd September 2005.
3. The petitioner had purchased four machines, namely "champion Motor Grader 760", "Mitsubishi Motor Grader", "Bomag Combination Roller" and "Samsung Excavator" , from scrap dealer namely M/s Vancy Scrap Trading (UAE) Bankok-Kores during the period of 1998-
2000.
4. It is urged by the petitioner that the vehicles are designed and adapted for use in enclosed premise and are not fit to be used on public premise even while moving from one destination to another they are required to be carried on trailer.
SCA/11848/2005 98/130 JUDGMENT Conclusion:-
These vehicles fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
Motor vehicles falling under 'C' category SCA No.17107 of 2005 The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacturing of cement where limestone and marl are the basic raw-materials, which are needed to be excavated from beneath the earth for which the petitioner purchased various lands for excavation and mining purposes. Within such mining areas there are privately constructed roads of different quality than the normal roads in view of the fact that this heavy machinery is required to be operated within such mining areas.
It is also the say that to aid and assist such mining activities, other mining equipments and machineries, such as Dumpers, Loaders and various kinds of Cranes and other special equipments are used. Heavy earth moving equipments are used in enclosed mining areas or factory premises.
Specifications:-
List of Earthmoving Machineries and Cranes (at Mithapur works) Sr. Descript-ion Make of Sr.No. of Sr.No. Date of Unladden No. of Equip. Equipment of Commiss Weight Equipment Engine ioning in kgs LOCO DEPT.
1 TAC 20 TELCO TAC 20-0047- 412070 28.1.93 12840 Crane No-1 0021 2 TAC 20 TELCO TAC 20-0048- 420170 25.3.93 12840 Crane No-2 0020 3 TAC 20 TELCO TAC 20-0072- AVQ- 22.4.94 12840 Crane No-3 0047 100861 4 TAC 20 TELCO TAC 20-0073- BVQ- 16.4.94 12840 Crane No-4 0048 103870 SCA/11848/2005 99/130 JUDGMENT 5 TAC 20 TELCO TAC 20-0074- CVQ- 15.4.94 12840 Crane No-5 0049 109031 6 TAC 20 TELCO T02-0109- LYQ- 20.1.96 12840 Crane No-6 0081 145526 7 TAC 20 TELCO T02-0110- LVQ- 31.1.96 12840 Crane No-7 0082 145912 8 TAC 20 TELCO T02-0131- CTQ- 6.12.97 12840 Crane No-8 0094 113146 9 Omega 35 Voltas 1101 2525221 27.3.93 25000 Crane 5 10 Omega 40 Voltas 1001 6 D 3.4.84 32857 Crane No-1 222552 11 Omega 40 Voltas 1381 1050850 4.4.96 32828 Crane No-2 610 12 Husky Crane TIL 45895 ALHNM- 7.8.89 18540 620 Ltd. 0356 13 Coles Crane TIL 30553 P4 1970 12000 No-1 Ltd. Perkins 14 Terex Loader HM 20210884 ALEH- 17.4.91 9700 No-27 5169 15 Terex Loader HM 210981 DUEM- 20.10. 9700 No-28 19123 92 16 Terex Loader HM 20211671 DYEM- 27.4.95 9700 No-30 031737 17 Terex Loader HM 20211700 JYEM- 29.7.95 9700 No-31 032176 18 Terex Loader HM 20211913 CXEM- 8.4.96 9700 No-32 034398 19 Terex Loader HM 20211929 DXEM- 30.3.96 9700 No-34 034595 20 Tata Wheel TELCO WL 0 543980 13.4.93 11437 Loader-1 1049039 21 Tata Wheel TELCO WL 0 G- 20.11. 11437 Loader-2 1067054 9370749 93 6 22 Tata Wheel TELCO WL 0 619393 4.12.93 11437 Loader-3 1068056 23 Escort Crane Escort 2E-228 E276 1.11.80 5500 3T 24 Escort Crane Escort 2E-289 E13432 1.3.81 5500 3T 25 Escort Crane Escort 875 4S10987 1.9.90 8100 8T 26 Escort Crane Escort 825 4S 1222 1.12.90 8100 3T 27 Voltas Voltas 126308 S433028 14.2.97 4450 Forklift 3T 559 28 Voltas Voltas DC75AT5/001 6S00056 12.9.88 10000 Forklift 66 7.5T 29 Voltas Voltas DC75AT5/002 6S00034 12.9.88 10000 Forklift 6 7.5T Conclusion:-
SCA/11848/2005 100/130 JUDGMENT Vehicles at serial Nos. 1 to 8 and 14 to 29 fall under 'B' category and being motor vehicles are exigible to the road tax.
Vehicles at serial Nos. 9 to 13 fall under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.1023 of 2004 The main activity of the petitioner is to lay down gas pipelines for the public sector companies.
It is averred by the petitioner that no road tax is payable on the machine of the petitioner which was brought within the territory of Gujarat for limited operation. M/s. Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd., had obtained a contract for laying down LPG pipelines from Gas Authority of India Limited. The company wanted to hire a machine for the petitioner. When the machine was entering within the territory of Gujarat through Deesa check post, the driver was informed that the same is exigible to tax. The machine is called 'HDD Rig Power Bore 100 Horizontal Directional drilling Machine Sr.No.94300/0021.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.704 of 2004 SCA/11848/2005 101/130 JUDGMENT The petitioner company is doing business in the name and style of Mideast Pipelines Products and Mideast Pipelines Private Limited. The main activity of the petitioner is to lay down gas pipeline. It is the say of the petitioner that it purchased 20 machines for the purpose of laying down pipelines. Out of those 20 machines, 10 machines are on wheels and 10 machines are mounted on chains.
One machine, which has been mounted on the trailer attached with the motor vehicle bearing RTO Registration No.DL-1-GB 8054 had reached Shamlaji Check post on January 17,2004. It is the say of the petitioner that no entry tax for RTO was charged and after completion of work in Gujarat, the machine was to return Delhi. The machine was to be mounted on pneumatic tyres.
History of H.D.D. Rig DD 25(12 ton Capacity) This was detained for having not made any payment of tax for the machine. Challenging this order of the officer, present petition is preferred.
The H.D.D. Rig is made in U.S.A. by American Augers in 1995.The rig was purchased from Directec in 1999 and imported to Mumbai. From Mumbai it was shifted to Delhi and Panipat where it worked. It then was brought to Gujarat around January 2001 and continued to remain here until Feb/March 2001. No entry tax for R.T.O. was charged or paid. It thereafter returned to Delhi/ Panipat. Now it is being sent once again to Gujarat. The whole machine is mounted on a trailer with pneumatic tyres. Trailer is SCA/11848/2005 102/130 JUDGMENT not registered as it towed by a towing truck since it is incapable of moving on its own and tow truck changes every time. The authorities of the State of Haryana have refused to register it stating that they register a trailer only alongwith a prime mover but not trailer alone.
Other specifications:-
Drilling Unit : DD-25
Maximum Torque : 2,500 ft-lb
Maximum Thrust/
Pullback-
continuous rating : 25,000 lb
Maximum Speed : 0-100 RPM
Rotary Down Hole
Horsepower
(at 100 RPM) : 47.5
Carriage Drive : Rack & Pinion
Drill Pipe Length : 10 11
Mobility : Steel Tracks- Full Rubber
Tracks
Ground Bearing
Pressure : 3.5 psi( full rubber)
Drill Fluid System:
Capacity: Twin 250 gallon
option : Additional Twin 250 gallon (in
lieu of pipe rack)
Maximum
Pressure : 1,000 psi
Variable
Hole Rate : 0-70 GPM
Fluid Down
Hole HP at
70 GPM : 46.7
Power Unit
Type: John Deere 60681 diesel 6 cylinder
turbo
Horsepower : 150 continuous duty Options:
Caterpillar: 4056-T Trailer:
SCA/11848/2005 103/130 JUDGMENT Type: Tag Tandem axle dual tired.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle, falls under 'C' category, and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.1304 of 2004 The main activity of the petitioner is to lay down gas pipelines for the public sector companies.
It is averred by the petitioner that no road tax is payable on the machine of the petitioner which was brought within the territory of Gujarat for the limited operation. M/s. Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd., had obtained a contract for laying down LPG pipelines for Gas Authority of India Limited. The company wanted to hire a machine for the petitioner. When the machine was entering within the territory of Gujarat through Deesa check post, the driver was informed that the same is exigible to tax. The machine is called 'Cater-Pillar D-7 Machine known as Cater Pillar pipelayer with winches 108 HP Diesel Engine and 23" Sideboom attachment.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under category 'C' and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.703 of 2004 The main activity of the petitioner is to lay SCA/11848/2005 104/130 JUDGMENT down gas pipelines for the public sector companies.
It is averred by the petitioner that no road tax is payable on the machine of the petitioner which was brought within the territory of Gujarat for the limited operation. M/s. Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd., had obtained a contract for laying down LPG pipelines for Gas Authority of India Limited. The company wanted to hire a machine for the petitioner. When the machine was entering the territory of Gujarat through Deesa check post, the driver was informed that the same is exigible to tax.
The machine is called 'Cater-Pillar D-6 Machine Sr.No.9-U 3934 known as Cater Pillar Sidebooms/ pipelayer.
Specification of this vehicle is not on the record of the file.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.6200 of 2004 The petitioner company is doing the business in the name and style of Mideast Pipelines Products and Mideast Pipelines Private Limited. The main activity of the petitioner is to lay down gas pipeline. It is the say of the petitioner that they purchased 20 machines for the purpose of laying down pipelines. Out of those 20 machines, 10 machines are on wheels and 10 machines are mounted on chains.
SCA/11848/2005 105/130 JUDGMENT One machine which has been mounted on the trailer attached with the motor vehicle bearing RTO Registration No.DL-1-GB 8054 had reached Shamlaji Check post on January 17,2004. It is the say of the petitioner that no entry tax for RTO was charged and after completion of work in Gujarat, the machine was returned to Delhi. The machine was to be mounted on pneumatic tyres. Aggrieved by the notice issued by respondent for non-registration and for non-payment of tax on these equipments, present petition is preferred.
History of H.D.D. Rig DD 25(12 ton Capacity) The H.D.D. Rig is made in U.S.A. by American Augers in 1995. The rig was purchased from Directec in 1999 and imported into Mumbai. From Mumbai it was shifted to Delhi and Panipat where it worked. It then went to Gujarat around January 2001 and stayed there until Feb/March 2001. No entry tax for R.T.O. was charged or paid. It thereafter returned to Delhi/ Panipat. Now it is being sent once again to Gujarat. The whole machine is mounted on a trailer with pneumatic tyres. Trailer is not registered as it towed by a tow truck since it is incapable of moving on its own and tow truck changes every time. The authorities in Haryana have refused to register it stating that they register a trailer only alongwith a prime mover but not trailer alone.
Other specifications:-
Drilling Unit : DD-25
Maximum Torque : 2,500 ft-lb
Maximum Thrust/
Pullback-
SCA/11848/2005 106/130 JUDGMENT
continuous rating : 25,000 lb
Maximum Speed : 0-100 RPM
Rotary Down Hole
Horsepower
(at 100 RPM) : 47.5
Carriage Drive : Rack & Pinion
Drill Pipe Length : 10 11
Mobility : Steel Tracks- Full Rubber
Tracks
Ground Bearing
Pressure : 3.5 psi( full rubber)
Drill Fluid System:
Capacity: Twin 250 gallon
option : Additional Twin 250 gallon (in
lieu of pipe rack)
Maximum
Pressure : 1,000 psi
Variable
Hole Rate : 0-70 GPM
Fluid Down
Hole HP at
70 GPM : 46.7
Power Unit
Type: John Deere 60681 diesel 6 cylinder
turbo
Horsepower : 150 continuous duty Options:
Caterpillar: 4056-T Trailer:
Type: Tag Tandem axle dual tired.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.12616 of 2004 The petitioner purchased one Crawl Cat 300 Dredger on 28.7.1994 from on M/s.Tebma Shipyards SCA/11848/2005 107/130 JUDGMENT Limited. It is designed to be plied only in water. It is manufactured to dredge and desilt the sand from the bed of river or ocean and that is the only activity it is meant for. It is also being used for analyzing different level of depth of water in sea and in river. The dredgers of the petitioner company are called for from international company to work in other nations, so its standard has to be that of international quality. According to the petitioner, it is more like a ship than a motor vehicle.
Specification of Crawl Cat 300 Dredger The Crawl Cat, an amphibious hydraulic cutter suction dredger offers tremendous potential for capital and maintenance dredging. The Crawl Cats are playing a major role in deepening and widening many irrigation canals, sand and fly ash, removal of Thermal Power station intake channels, de-silting and deepening of lakes and reservoirs, widening and streamlining of rivers, capital dredging and channelizing of fishing harbours, beach nourishment and land reclamation of coastal zones etc. The Crawl Cat with the capability of jacking the potoon above water level to overcome extreme condition of waves and currents is a safe dredger to work in estuaries and winch wires, the ability to work continuously, easy handling by one operator, good maneuverability contributes to higher productivity. Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall SCA/11848/2005 108/130 JUDGMENT be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No. 4441 of 2004 The petitioner is carrying on the business of construction work. It uses crawler crane of a capacity of 150 tonnes at the Akrimota (Kachchh) site since June, 2001 to February, 2006. The said crane is used for lifting and removal of huge heavy loads and other equipments within Akrimota Thermal Power Project at village Nani Chher, Tal: Lakhpat, District: Kachchh. It is the say of the petitioner that the crane is mounted on chains and can be used only in factory and other enclosed premises and cannot be plied on the roads.
Description of the vehicle Complete specification of 150 tonne crawler crane Capacity: 150 tonne Type: Crawler Make: IHI(JAPAN) Model: CCH 1500 E Boom Length: 75 Mtrs FLY JIB: 13 Mtrs Main Hoist: M26X 430 Mtrs Aux. Hoist cable: M26 x 285 Mtrs Engine: Diesel Engine Make: Hino Motors Co. Ltd. Engine Model: EF 750 Specifications of base machine and equipments are given on pages 17 and 18 of the petition.
Conclusion:-
SCA/11848/2005 109/130 JUDGMENT This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.545 of 2004 The petitioner purchased Hitachi KH-1000 crawler crane with lifting capacity of 204100 kg. The said crawler crane was purchased from Mazagon Dock Ltd. vide invoice dated 22.2.2003. This was taken from Mazagon Dock Ltd., Manglore Yard on 22.3.2003 with all attachments, booms and other parts to carry the same to Hazira. This was brought in dismantled condition in 11 truck trailers hired from transporters. While they were entering Gujarat, they were halted at Songadh check post.
Detailed specification is not found Type of vehicle- Crawler crane Model No.:- Hitachi KH 100 Purchased on 22.2.2003 No. of Vehicle: One Lifting capacity:- 204100 Boom: Not found Speed 50 kmph Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA/11848/2005 110/130 JUDGMENT SCA No.6326 of 2004 The petitioner purchased a crawler crane on 15.5.2004. The said crane was of Model RB-71, 125 M TON with 120 ft. boom and other accessories from M/s.
Fam Erectors & Lifters Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. The said crane was brought to Alang Ship-breaking Yard, Bhavnagar. It is the say of the petitioner that this vehicle is adapted for use only in the factory or in the enclosed premises.
Specification of the vehicle:
Item Description Feet.Inch
A Top Gantry to Ground-Height 26'.00"
B Gantry-Height 13'.00"
C Counter Weight Bottom to Ground-Height 4'.00"
D Cabin-Length (with counter weight) 22'.06"
E Cabin-Length (without counter weight) 18'.02"
F Bottom Boom Main Pin to Ground-Height 7'.03"
G Track Chain- Length 21'.00"
H Front Idler to Rear Idler- Length 18'.00"
I Cabin- Width 10'.06"
J Cabin-Height 6'.10"
K Right Track Chain to Left Track Chain outer-Width 17'.00"
L Right Idler to Left Idler outer-Width 14'.03"
M Chain- Height 3'.10"
N Top Cabin to Ground- Height 13'.00"
O Distance from center joint to front of cabin 6'6"
P Distance from center joint to end of counterweight 17'
Specifications
Maximum Rated Load 125 Tons at 5.00 m operating
radius
Boom Basic Boom Length 60 feet
Maximum Boom Length 200 feet
Swing High 1.8 rpm
Speed
Low 1.2 rpm
Travel High 1.1 km/h
Speed
Low 0.5 km/h
SCA/11848/2005 111/130 JUDGMENT
Gradeability 170 (30%)
Ground 0.75 bar ( 0.75 kg/cm)
pressure
Operating 110 Tons
Weight
Engine Model KCL NT 855 C(FFC)
Rated horsepower 184 kw(250 PS) at (2,000 rmp)
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.15326 of 2003 The petitioner is refinery engaged in the business of refining crude oil and manufacturing of petroleum products. It required 60 crawler cranes to be brought from outside Gujarat. The vehicles cannot travel on the road according to the petitioner and they need to be dismantled and loaded on 5 to 6 trailer trucks. Because of its heavy weight, the trailer trucks ply at very slow speed. These are construction equipments and are adapted to be used only in enclosed premises.
Type of vehicle: Crawler Crane Model No. Not found No. of vehicles: 60 crawlers Lifting capacity: Not found in the petition Boom: Not found in the petition Conclusion:-
These vehicles fall under 'C' category and shall SCA/11848/2005 112/130 JUDGMENT be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.15271 of 2003 The petitioner is required to transport crawler crane i.e. American Hoisr Crawler Model 9310, 225 Tons lifting crane with accessories/attachment Serial No.8003A02354 Engine No. Cummins Model NTA-855-C Diesel Engine in a truck trailer from Delta Mechcons (India) Ltd. village Kukarwada, District: Bharuch, Gujarat State. It was stopped at Bharuch check post.
According to the petitioner it is not a construction equipment vehicle nor a motor vehicle, hence, cannot be taxed.
Specification:-
Type of Vehicle: Crawler crane Model No- American Hoiser Crawler Model 9310 No. of vehicle- One Lifting capacity- 225 tone Boom-220 Ft. 40 ft. fly.
Conclusion:
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.17709 of 2003 The petitioners are engaged in the business of hiring of equipment such as crawler cranes and other such equipments used in enclosed factory premises for lifting and removal of huge and heavy containers and SCA/11848/2005 113/130 JUDGMENT other equipments and for activity of loading and unloading within factory premises. The petitioners had hired one crawler crane to Reliance Industries Limited. It was dismantled and sent in trailer trucks. When the trailer trucks reached Shamlaji Check post on 5.11.2003, they were detained by RTO authorities for payment of tax.
Type of Vehicle: Crawler Crane Model No.(1) Tata 655 BIC- One unit (2) 40 MTS- One unit Lifting capacity: Not found Boom- 100 ft.
Detailed specifications of these vehicles mentioned above are not found on the record. Conclusion:-
These vehicles fall under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.17708 of 2003 The petitioner is engaged in the business of hiring of equipment such as Crawler Cranes and other equipments. The cranes are mounted on chains and designed to be used in the factory with enclosed premises. The machines were hired for shut-down operations in Reliance Industries Limited. The petitioners were approached where the company required three crawler cranes. Reliance Industries Limited had also filed SCA no.15326 of 2003 since the State of Gujarat was levying motor vehicle tax on crawler crane from the date of purchase. Therefore, the petitioners SCA/11848/2005 114/130 JUDGMENT and other crane hirers were not ready to supply the cranes to Reliance Industries Limited. Specification:-
Type of Vehicle: Crawler Crane Model No.(1) NCK Rapier - One unit (2) Tata-955 ALC- Two unit Lifting capacity- Not found Boom-100 Ft.
No detailed specifications of these vehicles are found on the record.
Conclusion:-
These vehicles fall under Category 'C' and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.17707 of 2003 The petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the respondent in Tax Appeal Nos.6,9,12,14,15,16,17,19,23,24,31,34 and 35 of 2003 where pipe layers, excavators, cranes and backhoe etc. have been declared as motor vehicles and registered under the Motor Vehicles Act.
It is the say of the petitioner that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of hiring of equipment such as crawler cranes and other such equipments used in enclosed factory premises for lifting and removal of huge and heavy containers and other equipments and for activity of loading and unloading within the factory premises. It is the say of the petitioner that the cranes of the company are mounted on chains, which are designed and adapted to SCA/11848/2005 115/130 JUDGMENT be used only in factory. Crawler cranes are truck mounted cranes fitted with a boom of high-lift capacity.
Type of Vehicle: Crawler Crane Model No: Not found No. of vehicle: Three Lifting capacity: not found Boom-140 ft.(Angle boom) Detailed specifications of these vehicles are not found on the record of the file.
Conclusion:-
These vehicles fall under category 'C' and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.16228 of 2003 The petitioner is engaged in the business of commissioning, designing and constructing pipeline projects. It is awarded the national project of Salaya-Mathura crude oil pipeline project for IOC. For execution of work, it requires various equipments, machineries, which are transported from one place to another as per the requirements of the project at different project sites.
According to the petitioner, chain mounted crawler crane does not fall within the definition of construction equipment vehicle. Therefore, no tax could be levied under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is contrary to the provisions of law.
The petitioner seeks to challenge Circular dated SCA/11848/2005 116/130 JUDGMENT 15.7.2003 issued by the Commissioner of Road Transport, Gujarat State with a prayer to quash and set aside the same.
Equipment Type: Crawler crane Model No: 101MK Height: 2935 mm Width: 3425 mm Length: not known Weight: 29870 kg Lifting capacity: 41000 kg Speed:- not known Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.17686 of 2003 The petitioner company is engaged in the business of hiring of equipment such as Crawler Cranes and other such equipments used in enclosed factory premises. The cranes of the company are mounted on chains, which are designed and adapted for use only in factory or other enclosed premises and cannot be plied on road and hence are not motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Type of Vehicle: Crawler Crane Model No.(1) Tata 955 ALC-One (2) Limaclark-1500-One Lifting Capacity- Not found Boom- not found SCA/11848/2005 117/130 JUDGMENT Specifications of the vehicles mentioned above not found.
Conclusion:-
These vehicles fall under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.321 of 2004 Petitioner is engaged in the business of laying down gas pipeline. He had purchased about 20 machines for different use for the purpose of laying down pipeline. Out of 20 machines, 10 machines are on wheels and 10 machines are mounted on chains. As per the petition, only challenge is raised with regard to only two machines.
For laying down LPG gas pipeline for the Gas Authority of India Limited ('GAIL' for short) from Vaghodia to Gujarat Refinery at Ranoli in Vadodara District, the petitioner wanted to transport the machines to the site for laying down the pipelines. For bringing the machines within the territory of Gujarat State through Dahod Check Post they were mounted on the trailer attached with the motor vehicle bearing RTO Registration No. H.R-38 E3632 on 8th January, 2004. Driver was asked to furnish the history of the vehicle. Not only tax was demanded to the tune of Rs.2.5 lakhs, but also the same were detained.
According to the petitioner one machine known as 'Caterpillar D-7' was purchased in January, 2001 from Kiwah Welding & Construction Company, USA. Another machine viz. Another machine called SCA/11848/2005 118/130 JUDGMENT 'Caterpillar D-8' was purchased in January, 2001 from the same Company of USA.
Conclusion:-
These vehicles fall under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.17965 of 2003 Petitioners-Company has challenged the demand of tax dated 10.11.2003 raised by the respondent No.4. Petitioners-Company was engaged in the business of manufacture of heavy petrochemicals. For the said business, he established a huge refinery and petrochemical complex at Vadodara. He requires huge machines and instruments and for loading and unloading and for maintenance and shutdown process. It requires specially designed crawler cranes mounted on chain and adapted for use in factory premises only. Four crawler cranes having following descriptions are used by the Company:-
Type and description of vehicles :Crawler Cranes Model No. Unit Wight (K.g) M.T. Category
1. 900 Americal Sky 1 2,20,000 220 A Horse
2. Tata P&H 955/1 1 72,500 72.5 C
3. Tata P&H 320 1 22,500 22.5 C
4. Tata P&H 955/2 1 72,500 72.5 C According to the petitioner it cannot be called as 'motor vehicles' under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 nor can they be said 'construction equipment vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the Central SCA/11848/2005 119/130 JUDGMENT Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
Conclusion:-
Vehicle at serial No.1 falls under 'A' category and is not motor vehicle and also not exigible to the road tax.
Vehicles at serial Nos.2 to 4 fall under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA 20802 of 2005 The petitioner is engaged in the business of importing cranes and hiring them out for use in heavy industries for erection work. The petitioner challenges the order dated 10.6.2005 passed by respondent No.3.
It is say of the petitioner that all the Crawler Cranes are very bulky and in dismantled condition, for transporting the same it would require minimum 10 to 12 trailers. One of the cranes was being taken out of Gujarat to Karnataka. The same was detained at C.P. Sagbara and Songadh Check Post. Literature with regard to Manitowoc 4100W Series -2 Crawler Cranes given in the petition at Pages 19-22 in brief can be described as Manitowoc's Model 4600 Series-5 equipped with 150 boom, which picks and carries a 191.9 ton load during pre-delivery testing. By adding two 55,000 pound carbody counterweights and two 20,700 pound upperworks counterweights, a Manitowoc 4600 Series -4 can be upgraded to a Series -5.
SCA/11848/2005 120/130 JUDGMENT The description of the three Crawler Cranes are as under:-
Equipment Model No. Serial No. Category No.
1. Manitowoc 4100W S-2 SI.No.41749 C
2. Manitowoc 4100W S-2 SI.No.413074 C
3. Kobelco P&H 5300 SI.No. J23110 C Conclusion:-
All the vehicles shown in the chart above fall under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.4090 of 2006 Petitioner is engaged in the business of importing cranes and hiring them out for use in heavy industries for erection work. The dispute is with regard to the question of taxability of Crawler Cranes of the petitioner which are treated as 'motor vehicle'. The total amount of tax deposited for the said cranes along with penalty are as follows:
Model No. Sr.No. Tax deposited with Category penalty (Rs.) MANITOWOC 4100 W Sr.41749 256411 C MANITOWOC 4100 W Sr.413074 1148568 C Kobelco P & H 5300 Sr.J23110 151191 C Conclusion:-
All the vehicles shown in the chart above fall under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.4092 of 2006 SCA/11848/2005 121/130 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 12.1.2006 holding the Crawler Crane Manitowoc-400-W as construction equipment vehicle falling within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rule 2 of Sub Clause CA of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
Petitioner when was bringing Crawler Crane, it was detained at Tharad Check-post and with protest deposited sum of Rs. 1,01,920/-.
Specification of this vehicle is not found on record of the file.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No. 4094 of 2006 The petitioner is engaged in the business of importing cranes and hiring them out for use in heavy industries for erection work. Three Crawler Cranes were detained at Bhilad and Deesa Checkpost on the ground that they were defined as 'motor vehicles' under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act. It deposited the amount under protest as per the petitioner, to the tune of Rs.3,66,384/-. This petitioner challenges the order dated 12.1.2006 where respondent held Crawler Cranes as 'motor vehicles' or construction equipment SCA/11848/2005 122/130 JUDGMENT vehicles within the meaning of Section 2(28) of Motor Vehicle Act and Rule (2 )Sub Clause (c)(a) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Specifications of vehicles are not found in the memo of the petition.
Conclusion:-
These vehicles fall under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No. 4281 of 2006 The petitioner is engaged in the business of importing cranes and hiring them out for use in heavy industries for erection work. There were 5 types of Crawler Cranes and were detained at Bhilad Checkpost on the ground that the same are motor vehicles under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act.
Description and total amount of tax deposited for the said cranes alongwith penalty are as follows :
Appea Crane Make Crawle Motor Date of Tax Validity Category l No. r Crane Vehicle tax Recovery Sr.No. paid (Rs.) 61/04 HITACHI KH 0253- 71448 29-11-03 31-01-04 C 700 241 71448 31-01-04 30-04-04 71448 15-04-04 31-07-04 62/04 MANITOWOC 41856 107208 1-12-03 28-02-04 C 4100w 63/04 MANITOWOC 41412 Tax 100248 29-11-03 31-1-04 C 4100w Pen.25062 Int. 2005
-----
Total 127315 31-1-04 30-4-04
100248
SCA/11848/2005 123/130 JUDGMENT
64/04 DEMAGCC 64035 Tax 151368 29-11-03 31-1-04 C
2000 Pen.37842
Int.3028
------
Total 192238
65/04 MANITOWOC 41846 Tax 100248 39-11-03 31-1-04 C
4100W Pen. 25062
Int. 2005
------
Total 127315
100248 31-1-04 30-4-04
Conclusion:-
All the vehicles shown in the chart above fall under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No. 4277 of 2006 Petitioner challenges the order dated 5.11.2005 passed by respondent No.2 in Tax Appeal Nos. 102 to 104 of 2003 holding that truck mounted cranes owned by the petitioner are defined as 'motor vehicles' within the encompass of 'Construction Equipment Vehicle' under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
At Bhilad Checkpost when the truck mounted cranes had been brought, tax was demanded. After detaining the cranes challenge is made on various grounds.
Exact specifications of the vehicles are absent.
Conclusion:-
These vehicles fall under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.17843 of 2006 Petitioner is providing industrial and technical services by taking work contract where it is required to mobilize its machinery and cranes to the respective SCA/11848/2005 124/130 JUDGMENT place of work. The petitioner purchased Crawler Crane (H.M.93-Shovel) on 2.12.1996 which is used for lifting and loading/unloading heavy duty machinery or equipments or catalyst within the factory premise. Pursuant to the work-contract awarded by Larsen & Toubro Ltd. for dredging work at Hazira, Surat, petitioner mobilized the Crawler Crane, which requires three different types of trailers for transportation.
The present petition is challenged for the payment of road tax and the penalty on the basis of Circular dated 15.7.2003. It is say of the petitioner that the said Crawler Crane was purchased in 1996. But it was transported in Gujarat in 2001 till it was lying unused. Therefore, the demand of tax from 1995 is not justifiable. It has also challenged very tax demand on the ground that machine is not 'motor vehicle'.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.29762 of 2007 Petitioner is a partnership firm which has undertaken the project to take out scrap of Vessel M.V.OCCEAN SERAYA struck up at Oyster Rock, Karwar in the State of Karnataka. The said scrap has been purchased by the petitioner firm from underwater specialized agency M/s. N.R.Underwater Diving Services, having its Head Office at Bhavnagar and Branch Office at Goa.
SCA/11848/2005 125/130 JUDGMENT It is say of the petitioner that with Crawler Crane bearing Engine No. 91721 and Chasis No. SO 8190001921, petitioner-Firm entered into a rent agreement with one M/s.Jawandamal Dhannamal. For crawling crane to lift the scrap for taking this crawling crane, a truck trailer was hired by the petitioner. It was loaded on the said truck trailer from the ship breaking plot of Alang Ship Breaking Yard. According to the petitioner, RTO Authority, Bhavnagar physically inspected the crane at the Ship Breaking Plot and from the year 1995 to 2007 it calculated the tax and directed the payment towards the tax.
It is also say of the petitioner that when said crawling crane was dispatched to Karwar in the State of Karnataka and when was being carried upon the truck trailer, the same was intercepted and detained on 12.10.2007. This petition is preferred seeking direction to release the crawling crane without levying tax as assessed by the authority and as also to pay the damages for having been detained without authority.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA No.13051 of 2008 Petitioner - Company is engaged in the business of exploration, production, refining and marketing of various petroleum products. It requires separately SCA/11848/2005 126/130 JUDGMENT designed crawler crane mounted on chain and adapted for use in factory premises. It is further say of the petitioner that the said crane is purely off highway machine. Petitioner challenges the order of Transport Commissioner passed dated 28.4.2003.
In the instant case machine used is Crawler Mobile crane Model CC 12000(Demag Superlifter) S.R.No. 54001 Engine No. 33112146-W, which entered into Gujarat on 14th June, 1998.
Specification of this vehicle is not found on record of the file.
Conclusion:-
This vehicle falls under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
SCA 12680 of 2005
1. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of commissioning, designing, procuring, constructing various pipe-line Projects of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The petitioner Company was awarded the project of Salaya-Mathura Crude Oil Pipe Line by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. For execution of the said project, the petitioner company requires various equipments, machineries at different project sites.
2. The present petitioner is challenging action of the respondents where it detained two truck trailers bearing registration No. RJ-01-G-2876 and RJ-01-G-2366 with pipe layers loaded thereon. The petitioner SCA/11848/2005 127/130 JUDGMENT Company has averred that these are not Motor Vehicles and cannot be taxed as they are specially designed for laying pipe lines, and are not fit to ply on roads. They were detained at Songadh Check Post.
An undertaking was also given that pipe layers will not be taken out of the territorial limits of the State of Gujarat. It is also aggrieved by the order of the respondent No. 3 in revision holding that the pipe layer is a motor vehicle under definition of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The petition itself gives detailed features of pipe layers with its length and weight in the following manner:
Height : 21.19ft., 6.43 Mtrs.
Width : 11.1ft (3.38 meters)
Length : 16.5ft.(5.03 meters)
Weight : 25 Tons
3. Affidavit-in-reply is filed, wherein this has
been objected to and it is necessitated that merely because the pipe layer is bigger and heavier, it do not cease to be motor vehicle but it is a special purpose equipment like excavator, loader, dumpers, motor grader etc. 3.1 In rejoinder-affidavit,the brochures and the photographs are also brought on record, the total number of pipe layers are four in number.
Specifications of the vehicles are as under:-
Sr. Make/Model Serial No. Chasis No. NO.
1 CAT572F 96N172 2P6808 SCA/11848/2005 128/130 JUDGMENT 2 CAT572G 40U488 3N4785 3 CAT572G 40U788 3N81243 4 CAT572G 40U784 3N80925 Conclusion:-
These vehicles fall under 'C' category and shall be exigible to tax subject to further inquiry and inspection.
55. We are informed that in all these petitions, under different orders, the petitioners have paid part of the tax dues and given bank guarantees or security for the remaining amount. Accordingly, in all the categories of vehicles where we have held that they are not motor vehicles, whatever tax the State might have collected shall have to be refunded. In categories were we have concluded that the vehicles are motor vehicles, the petitioners shall have to pay the remaining tax. In case where we have permitted further inquiry, the tax liability shall be concluded only after such inquiry is over.
56. Before concluding, we note that some of the petitioners have made grievance that road tax was demanded from the date of purchase of the vehicle and not from the date of entry in the State. We are of the opinion that this is clearly erroneous. The respondents shall in no case demand tax from the date of purchase of the vehicle by the petitioners, but only from the date the vehicle entered the State or was intercepted by the Authorities.
SCA/11848/2005 129/130 JUDGMENT
57. Subject to the above directions and clarification, all petitions are disposed of with a further direction that wherever the respondents have to refund the tax already collected, the same shall bear simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of collection till refund. Similarly, in cases where the petitioners have to pay the unpaid dues, such dues shall also carry simple interest at the rate of 9% from the date of tax liability arose till actual payment.
58. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even if the vehicle is a motor vehicle subjected to tax, if it is not used or kept for use, tax liability for such period would be suspended. Without full material on record with respect to each case, we would not be able to give any conclusive directions leaving it open to the petitioners of individual cases to approach the Authorities in this regard.
(Akil Kureshi, J. ) (Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.) sudhir Footnote:-
Details and discussions wherever found from the individual petitions are recorded in this judgment. However, wherever they were not easily available, the same are taken from Internet sites, namely,Wikipedia SCA/11848/2005 130/130 JUDGMENT and Ritchiewiki.