Karnataka High Court
Rajashree Cement vs The State Of Karnataka Dept Of Transport on 10 December, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
ff: JUDGMENT
The appefiants being aggriexteetby 24~5M2O1O made in W.P.No,.],_6188/Q00? 16507/2007 w.p.Na»...:8;"738/zoosee3 and W.P.No.8739/2008 pa§é;ed single Judge, filed these appeals. A L. 1» I 9' 2, the :'e;¢%istered under the provisionsgof and is engaged in distribution of Cement at Sedam The Limestone is the essential raWV"m_ateriavl required for the manufacture of endyfotf the purpose of obtaining the said Lime~ 'stone; uthev»-._app'eI1ants have entered into mining lease
--V with Stette Government by paying royalty, For the ':jpAu'rpose" of excavating the Lirnemstoneg the appeliants Earth Moving Equipments, such as dumpers, _;" pr 'A C).l ..
sq;
Vehicle Act. The said Vehicles are not eapalajlev used in the public road. Furtliétr, lseekarid respondent has no jurisdiction tdleVyA'taXli:1.vi.eW judgment of this Hon'ble 'l996*l KAR 3480 (PAMPAVATHI V'/-s-;lll:f&§ENI§)RhlINSvl?EC£TOR OF VEHICLES, RTO, iiotification dated 7: lw2000 by which, dated '71-l2-1980 has been law declared by the High? 'r'lppe§l1ate authority after Consicleieilfilg dismissed the appeal filed tliel the demand notice issued by the 'e-eeond, respondent. _Be:ifi§"l'a:ggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed'téWi.i?.l§jes'516i88/2607 C/W, W',P.N0s,l6507/2007, 8738[2lQOh8'. and 8739/2008 before this Horfble Court 3 ehalleriging the same on Various grounds and also leefitending that in View of the law laid by the l--leI:i'b1e /ale €b~ or ORISSA AND omaas} held that rockers are liable to be taxed. Hewevert ilibertylbas, heen V reserved to the petitioners to challenge thel"notitielation dated 7~12~2000 and alse to seek. 'far or reduction of the tax in respect ~ . I
8. Being aggri_.etred""'by:': passed by the learned Sing}-re thej above petitions, the appellants have pppreterrefdl 'these appeals.
7. Sr§..vlPran3odl the advocate appearing for the Vappellannts.reiterated the arguments addressed ._t_Abef:(§:re ..tlearne'd~----Single Judge and contended that the ld.en:andlnetie'e.issued by the second respondent which the third respondent and the learned Single Lhtdée is contrary to the law laid down by the Honfblelll Supreme Court. He also submitted that the l iearned Single Judge has gravely erred in overlooking the provision of Section 2(j} of Karnataka Mote? _ Taxation Act 1957 while rejectingmthe eon'£:e.ntion::ofVthe W appellants that EMES in que.3tio_n fwere Vehicles as defined under u.__the 'provisions; l\»_iotor_u> Vehicles Act, l988. The by the learned Single Judge theease of the appellants. Hepfurther..eontendepd conclusion of the learned"$in§l:e'_tlttdgé=; "appellants are liable to pay inltqulestion in View of the currerleljfdlof lleettlfieates of the El\/[Es is totallylllineofieetlp any basis. The currency of registration, the EMES has no bearing on ofh"the....appellants to pay tax in respect of 'El\¢l'Es.-.__"The°'mere registration of these El\/[Es by the app-ellantaaftd Currency of registration Certificates will not"ren--der' these EMES liable for the payment of the tax. 3 Hett_'furth.er contends that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge ie fallaeious and eentrary to the /gave \, £4 authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble --::§li*f.il'€fi3§) Court and this Honfble Court and sought':ifornselttirig aside the same by allowing these~a'pp--eals'_,l if ll '
8. On the other hand, -
Additional Government Advojoate for*- contended that these, treatedas motor Vehicles and registered Vehicles Act. However, the ithssilhotifioation dated 8~5--l98O 'conferred by Section l6[l)(a:'}fofv 1957, exempted the tax pagfalole in EMES subject to Certain conditions. 'Fi:rther: the appellants have been . with conditions stipulated therein. .xState Government by its notification dated '21-1iZ'««2O.,{)O~.«:reseinded the earlier notification dated
980." Thus when the exemption is Withdrawn, the lagilpelllants are liable to pay the tax on EMES. The 1% 5{ff:§/;é¢'V// 5 i, ' 16 subject to certain conditions. Further, the owners of those vehicles had to use those vehicles XViJE1"1}t'I%1'!'7,'iChf3 mining area or the factory premises. Government by its notification date.d,_u_:'f?} ._ rescinded the earlier exemption granteei Witi1.'imrnediate.' effect. In View of the withdrawal earlier"V'hr1}31iifica'tiori dated 8~5~1980, the appeI1ant'e'«..areVViiahle the tax in respect of these are fully aware of the fact thatpthesie under the Motor ._g%<5ft."regieVtration numbers. For vehicles have been treate<i1_'as--_ .. 'The State Government has power to '}.evy_ taX4V'ori.pt_hese vehicles, However, the appefttants en'j'oyed___'__e::emption of payment of tax all these' 3zears.r"v the Government notification dated '?%'1«2'~2U'O't;}h-'tha;:t'exemption has been Withdrawn. In View Ipof that, appellants are bound to pay the tax. 5%' E9 therefore, it must be held that dampers rockers are vehicles adapted or suita.1;3e_'» use on roads and being motor vehi'ejl'es:Ape:;--'l se, were liable to taxationmoné the their use or kept for use pjiblielroiatijé. ' On these facts diifie1.ilt-'to hold that the A/ehielee :.are"---not latiaptetii or suitable or cap'alole on public roads, exp/pen though'-for..l§IlQst"vof'the time they might; bf: the mining arergié iiitigg by the mining earlier judgments '.of iri«vLCer1tra1 Coal Fields Ltd. and Union lv-,:uCh'owgule and Co. we hold '_ _that"'-the. in question are motor y:em%c1eé"and__ali~e taxable Within the ambit of the Tiia-xation Act."
"l.2';W In ifiexifi of the authoritative pronouncement of law by4"the7.;H.o4n'ble Supreme Court, the appellants had to Apayathe motor vehicles tax. Apart from that, none of the appellants have Challenged the legality and correctness / 5519*'