Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Italian-Thai Development Public ... vs State Of Hp & Others on 6 December, 2016
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9552 of 2013 Judgment reserved on: 22.11.2016 .
Date of decision: December 06, 2016 M/s Italian-Thai Development Public Company Ltd.
...Petitioner
Vs
State of HP & Others ...Respondents.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
rt The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. C. N. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge This writ petition involves the seminal question as to whether the construction equipment vehicles, more particularly, water tankers, heavy hyvas, farm tractors, transit mixtures and other heavy machines do not fall within the scope and purview of the definition of 'Motor Vehicles' and thus are exempted from tax?
2. The petitioner is executing the construction of Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project, main civil works Package 1 and has purchased different construction equipment vehicles.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 2Being aggrieved by the imposition of tax on these vehicles, has filed the instant petition for the following substantive reliefs:
.
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or other appropriate writ or directions quashing the notification dated 31.12.2003 being ultra vires (Annexure P-6) for all intents and purposes.
of
(ii) Consequentially issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or other appropriate writ or directions quashing impugned orders dated 20.4.2012 rt (Annexure P-4).
(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ or directions to the respondents to refund the tax collected by the respondent authority under the aforementioned notification /order dated 20.4.2012 with 12% interest per annum.
3. It is averred that no tax is leviable on construction equipment vehicles as these do not fall within the definition of 'Motor Vehicles' in terms of Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1972 (for short 'Act of 1972').
4. The respondents filed the reply wherein it is averred that the tax levied on the vehicles in question is as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1972 (for short Act of 1972) and the notifications dated 24.12.2003 and 31.12.2003 issued under the Act of 1972. It is averred that the vehicles in question have in fact been registered as per the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V.Act') and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay tax on the same.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 3We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
.
5. The term "Motor Vehicle" has been defined in Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads thus:
"(28) "Motor Vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically of 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 rt 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 a 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."
6. The term "Construction Equipment Vehicle" has been defined under Rule 2 (ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which reads 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, fork-lift truck, self-loading concrete mixer or any other construction equipment vehicle or combination thereof designed for off-highway operations in mining, industrial undertaking, 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 adopted for use in any enclosed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 4 premises, factory or mine other than road network, not equipped to travel on public roads on their own power."
.
7. It is clear from the aforesaid clause that the machineries like excavator, loader, dumpers have been included as 'construction equipment vehicle' and have been termed 'non-transport vehicle' under the explanation given to of this clause.
8. Likewise, a 'non-transport vehicle' has been defined rt under sub rule (h) of Rule 2 as under:
"2 (h): 'Non-transport vehicle' means a motor vehicle which is not a transport vehicle."
9. It is evident from the perusal of the above definition that the vehicles of special nature like dumpers, tippers and excavators are non-transport vehicles but nonetheless they are motor vehicles within the definition of Section 2 (28) of the Act.
Even if the driving of the same on the road is incidental and for a short duration and its speed is 50 Kms per hour, even then, what has been excluded or not included in the definition is the equipments which are purely off-highway construction equipment designed and adopted for use in any enclosed premises, factory or mines, other than road work, not equipped to travel on public roads on their own power.
10. At this stage, we may refer to some of the opinions rendered by the various Hon'ble High Courts on the issue.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 511. In M/s Kshardas & Co. vs. State of Maharashtra 1986 AIR (Bom) 348, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held .
that motor crane has mobility and is also suitable for use on a public road so far as its movement is concerned and mere fact that it had been used in the closed premises, cannot be said that it is not a motor vehicle as defined in Section 2 (28) of the Act.
of
12. In Poomani vs. Tuticorin Thermal Power Project, 1990 rt AIR (Mad), 372, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court held that crane driven on public road is a motor vehicle, though this was a case arising out of motor accident compensation claim.
13. Likewise, in M/s Chakkiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, 2001 AIR (Ker), 363 a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court 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 would nonetheless the motor vehicle as defined under the Act.
14. In M/s Birla Cement Works vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003 AIR (Raj) 25, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court while going into the question whether dumpers would be amenable to tax since the same were being used in the factory premises came to hold that simply because it is the special type of vehicle that are being used in the factory premises will not bring dumpers ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 6 within the exemption provided under Section 2 (28) as it is the user of the vehicle which determines its adaptability.
.
15. Similar issue came up before the Rajasthan High Court in Dinesh Mehta vs. Kaushikbhai K. Patel and others, C.W.P. No. 5373 of 2015, decided on 15.12.2015, wherein it was held as of under:
"6. The question posed before this Court is whether the rt Notification dated 1.1.2015 is beyond the competence of the State Legislature in so far as the State is only competent to levy tax as per Entry No. 57 of List II of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India on such vehicles as are suitable for use on roads and whether NORMET MULTIMEC 6600 S.No. GB 821 equipment is to be treated as a construction equipment or whether it is to be treated as off-roading vehicle, as described under Section 2(p) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951.
7. The term "Motor Vehicle" has been defined in Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which reads as under:-
" "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 a 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 centimetres."
8. The term "construction equipment vehicle" has been defined in Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which reads as under:-
"2 (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, fork lift truck, self-loading concrete mixer or any other construction equipment vehicle or combination thereof designed for off highway ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 7 operations in mining, industrial undertaking, 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 adopted for use in any enclosed premises, factory or mine other than road network, not equipped to travel on of public roads on their own power."
9. The contention raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Notification dated 1.1.2015 rt issued by the State Government including the term of purely Off-road vehicle is beyond the scope and ambit of the power conferred upon the State vide Entry No. 57 of List II of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since the State has been conferred power to impose tax only on such vehicles as are suitable for use on roads (emphasis supplied) and furthermore section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 specifies that a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises will not be included in the definition of a vehicle. This argument is without merit. A Division bench of this court in Birla Cement Works and Anr. Vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors. AIR 2003 Raj 251 while going into the question whether dumpers would be amenable to tax since the same were being used in factory premises , came to hold that simply because it is the special type of vehicle and that they have been used in the factory premises will not bring dumpers within the exemption provided under Section 2(28). It is the user of the vehicle who determines its adaptability.
38. Thus, we are of the view that the definition of the Motor Vehicles Act under Section 2(28) is quite comprehensive. The exemption incorporated therein relating to the vehicle "all special type adopted or used only in a factory or any other enclosed premises significantly has used word 'adapted' and another word 'only'. The expression "adapted" for use on roads means that the vehicle should be fit and apt to use on roads. It does not mean "actually used on roads". By the use of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 8 rubber tyres it is evident that they have been adapted for use on roads, which means that they are suitable for being used on public roads. The dumpers can certainly .
be used for carrying loads even outside the factory premises. The dumpers are suitable for use on public or private roads. Simply because it is the special type of vehicle and that they have been used in the factory premises will not bring within the exemption provided under Section 2(28). It is the user of the vehicle who of determines its adaptability. The test is if the vehicle is reasonably suitable for being used along with the public rt roads the mere fact that the manufacturer have made or intended a particular vehicle for one purpose or the other or the dealers have sold it for a particular purpose or that a particular vehicle is described by a particular name or description is no criteria to decide whether the vehicle is adapted for use upon the roads within the meaning of definition of Motor Vehicles Act under Section 2(28) of the M.V. Act. 1998.
Another word 'only' is also of a great significance. It clearly shows that the exemption is confined to only those kinds of vehicles which are exclusively designed for use in a factory or any enclosed premises, the actual use for particular purpose is no criteria to decide whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle. Thus, if the dumpers are suitable for use on public roads, it is a motor vehicle despite the fact they may have been used only in factory premises. Thus, we hold that the dumpers owned by the appellants/petitioners are motor vehicles within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as it does not fall in the exempted category in spite of being a special type of vehicle, being adaptable or suitable for being used on roads (by the use of rubber tyres) even though actually used only within the enclosed premises of the appellants/petitioners' factory. Hence they are liable to be taxed."
10. Similarly in the present case, the equipment imported by the petitioner is suitable for being used on public roads and the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate otherwise. The equipment in question, though used and adapted for mining purposes, is mounted on four rubber wheels .The description in the invoice itself describes it as a utility vehicle and as per the technical details of the equipment, it is shown as an underground carrier having its use for logistics underground ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 9 mines for scissor lift, personnel carrier with a diesel tank. Furthermore, it is a three gear vehicle with a reverse gear and is a four wheel drive. There is nothing available on record which .
would indicate that the said vehicle cannot be used on roads ,is not capable of being propelled mechanically, neither is it a vehicle running on fixed trails . Once it is a vehicle which is capable of being on the road , the State Government is competent to legislate and the notification dated 1.1.2015 is held to be valid."
of
16. Having considered the view taken by the various Hon'ble High Courts, we would now proceed to consider the rt judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject.
17. One of the first judgment which otherwise has heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has been rendered in Bolani Ores Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, 1975 AIR SC, 17, wherein it was held that the water tankers, heavy hyvas, farm tractors, transit mixtures and other heavy machines do not fall within the scope and purview of the definition of 'Motor Vehicle' and it is apt to reproduce the relevant observations which reads thus:
"23. The meaning of the word "adapted" in s. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 10 the same connotation as "is suitable" or" is fit" for use on the roads."
.
18. However, we find that not only has the Motor Vehicle Act undergone a sea change, but even the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bolani's case has been subsequently distinguished in number of cases and reference in of this regard can conveniently be made to the decision in the case of Travancore Tea Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, 1980 (3) SCC rt 619 wherein it was 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 and were thus motor vehicles.
19. Likewise, in Union of India vs. Cowgule and Co. Pvt.
Ltd. 1992 Supp 3 SCC 141 while distinguishing the decision in Bolani's case, it was held that dumpers and shovels used in mining activities were motor vehicles.
20. In Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area vs. State of Orissa (1996) 10 SCC 676, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that dumpers running on tyres and used within mining areas were motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2 (28) of the Act even though it was contended that such vehicles exceeded the permissible restrictions laid down in Rules 92 and 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that once the vehicles which otherwise fall within the definition of Motor Vehicles, would not go out of definition the moment it ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 11 exceeds the limit as provided in Rules 92 and 93 of the Rules and 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 or, the public road. But that does not mean that the vehicles which are otherwise motor vehicles within the definition clause go out of 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 & Ors. rt vs. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.- 1992 Sup. (3) Supreme Court Cases 141. 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. vs. State of Orissa - 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 133 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 compensatory tax for the availability of roads for them to run upon commission."
21. In Bose Abraham vs. State of Kerala and another (2001) 3 SCC 157, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that once the equipments like excavators and roadrollers are motor vehicles under the M.V. Act and further held that merely ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 12 because a motor vehicle is put to a specific use such as being confined to enclosed premises, will not render the same to be a .
different kind of vehicle. It is apt to reproduce the following observations:
"6. Section 2 (j) of the Act defines motor vehicle to mean a motor vehicle as defined in Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles of Act, 1988 [Central Act 59 of 1988]. Subject to the provisions of the Act, Section 3 of the Act enables the levy and collection of tax on the entry of any motor vehicle into local area for use or rt sale therein which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act at such rate as may be fixed by the Government. Therefore, in order to attract tax under the provision of Section 3 of the Act, a motor vehicle must have entered into a local area for use or sale therein and secondly which is liable for registration under the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. We hold that the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and they are registered under that Act. The High Court has noticed the admission of the appellants that the excavators and road rollers are suitable for use on roads. However, the contention put forth now is that they are intended for use in the enclosed premises. Merely because a motor vehicle is put to a specific use such as being confined to an enclosed premises, will not render the same to be a different kind of vehicle. Hence, in our view, the High Court has correctly decided the matter and the impugned order does not call for any interference by us. However, the question whether any motor vehicle has entered into a local area to attract tax under the Entry Tax Act or any concession given under the local Sales Tax Act will have to be dealt with in the course of assessment arising under the Entry Tax Act."
22. In M/s Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, 2005 AIR (SC) 3428, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the term 'motor vehicle' in the broadest possible ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 13 sense keeping in mind that the Act had been enacted in order to keep control over vehicles.
.
23. As a matter of fact, similar issue has been considered in detail by one of us (Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.) in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sharda Devi and others of (2016) 3 ACC, 627 (HP) wherein the question posed before this Court was as to whether the JCB machine (excavator) is a rt motor vehicle and it was held as under:
"15. Section 2 (28) of the Act defines definition of a motor vehicle and while going through the said definition, it appears that JCB machine is a motor vehicle. It is apt to reproduce Section 2 (28) of the Act herein.
"2 (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 a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding 4 [twenty-five cubic centimetres];"
16. It is also profitable to reproduce the definition of JCB given in Oxford dictionary at page 695.
"A powerful motor vehicle with a long arm for digging and moving earth."
17. The above quoted definition does disclose that the JCB is a powerful motor vehicle with a long arm for digging earth. In terms of the said definition, the JCB is a motor vehicle.
18. The same question arose before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Indore versus Balu Banjara and others reported in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 14 2008 (2) MPHT 252. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 8 of the said judgment herein.
"8. ...... ......In the present case the JCB .
machine is running on the roads and is being used for construction of the roads. Only because it is not being registered by the Regional Transport Authority as motor vehicle and no registration number is being given, it cannot be said that the JCB was not a motor under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that of the JCB machine is motor for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act."
19.rt The apex Court in Bose Abraham versus State of Kerala and another reported in AIR 2001 SC 835 has discussed Section 2 (28) of the Act and held that the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the said judgment herein.
"7. We hold that the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and they are registered under that Act. The High Court has noticed the admission of the appellants that the excavators and road rollers are suitable for use on roads. However, the contention put forth now is that they are intended for use in the enclosed premises. Merely because a motor vehicle is put to a specific use such as being confined to an enclosed premises, will not render the same to be a different kind of vehicle.
Hence, in our view, the High Court has correctly decided the matter and the impugned order does not call for any interference by us. However, the question whether any motor vehicle has entered into a local area to attract tax under the Entry Tax Act or any concession given under the local Sales Tax Act will have to be dealt with in the course of assessment arising under the Entry Tax Act".
20. The apex Court in another judgment rendered in case titled Nagashetty versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3356, held that the trailer attached with the tractor is a motor vehicle.
21. The apex Court in another judgment in case M/s Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. versus State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 3428 discussed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 15 Sections 2 (28), 2 (14) and 2 (47) of the Act and held that tractor-trailer is a transport vehicle under Section 2 (47) of the Act. It is apposite to reproduce para 24 of the said .
judgment herein.
"24. Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words "motor vehicle". Although, a "trailer" is separately defined under Sec. 2(46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle, it is still included into the definition of the words "motor vehicle" under Sec. 2(28).
of Similarly, the word "tractor" is defined in Sec. 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 rt 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 2(14), and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under Sec. 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 Sec. 2(14) as a "goods carriage" and consequently, it falls under the definition of "transport vehicle" under Sec. 2(47) of the M.V. Act, 1988."
22. The Gujarat High Court in case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baby Anjali & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 Gujarat 12, has discussed the definition in terms of Sections 2 (18) and 2 (19) of the Act and held that the trailer attached to the tractor falls within the definition of motor Vehicle.
23. The question arose before the Gujarat High Court in case titled State of Gujarat versus Danabhai Bhulabhai and Ors., reported in 1991 (2) G.L.H. 404, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 16 whether the bulldozer is a motor vehicle and it was held that the same is a motor vehicle. It is appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of para 11 of the said .
judgment herein.
"11. .........Therefore, going by the definition of the expression 'Motor Vehicle' and keeping in mind the evidence on record, the submission that bulldozer cannot be said to be a motor vehicle must be said to have been rightly rejected by the Tribunal."
of
24. In case Kusum and others versus Kamal Kumar Soni and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1613, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the power-tiller is a motor rt vehicle.
25. The apex Court in a latest judgment in case titled Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors versus Smt. Santosh & Ors. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 2791 has discussed the object of the Motor Vehicles Act and also Sections 2 (28) and 2(44). It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 22 of the said judgment herein.
"22. The Tractor is a machine run by diesel or petrol. It is a self- propelled vehicle for hauling other vehicles. It is used for different purposes. It is also used for agricultural purposes, along with other implements; such as harrows, ploughs, tillers, blade-terracers, seed- drills etc. It is a self- propelled vehicle capable of pulling alone as defined under the definition of Motor Vehicles. It does not fall within any of the exclusions as defined under the Act. Thus, it is a Motor Vehicle in terms of the definition under Section 2(28) of the Act, which definition has been adopted by the Act. So, even without referring to the definition of the Tractor, if the definition of the Motor Vehicle as given under the Act is strictly construed, even then the Tractor is a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act. The Tractor is not only used for agricultural purposes but is also used for other purposes as stated above. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tractor in its popular meaning is only used for agricultural purposes and, thus, is not a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act. The Tractor is a Motor Vehicle is also proved by this definition under Section 2(44) of the Act. Different types of Motor Vehicles have been defined under the provisions of the Act, and the Tractor is one of them. Thus, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP 17 considering the question from any angle, the Tractor is a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act."
.
26. Viewed thus, it is held that the JCB is a motor vehicle."
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the question posed in this writ petition is answered by holding that the of construction equipment vehicles, more particularly, water tankers, heavy hyvas, farm tractors, transit mixtures and other rt heavy machines definitely fall within the definition of 'Motor Vehicles' and thus cannot claim any exemption against the imposition of tax. Even otherwise, once these vehicles have been duly registered as Motor Vehicles under the Act, the petitioner can have no legitimate grievance for claiming that these vehicles do not fall within the definition of 'Motor Vehicles', that too, only on the ground that these machines are designed and adopted for use in an enclosed premises.
25. Having said so, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending application(s), leaving the parties to bear their costs.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir)
Chief Justice
December 06, 2016 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(gr) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:41:25 :::HCHP