Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. These Appeals are against the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 27th March, 1998. 2. The Appellants had issued G.O.Ms No. 75 dated 27th April, 1993 by which the road tax on vehicles was increased.

2. That G.O. was challenged in a Writ Petition bearing No. 7315 of 1993 which came to be dismissed. The G.O. was held to be valid. Thereafter, the Respondents filed Writ Petitions claiming that road rollers were not motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and hence no tax could be levied on road rollers.

3. The High Court in the impugned Judgment holds that the imposition of tax was authorised by Entry-57 of List-II of Schedule-VII of the Constitution of India and that pursuant thereto the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 permitted levying of tax on vehicles using the roads. The High Court placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa and held that before vehicles could be taxed they must be adapted/suitable for use on loads. The High Court noticed the definition of 'Motor Vehicle' under Section 2(28) as well as the definition of 'Light Motor Vehicle' under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court still concluded that a road roller was not suitable for use on roads because it was meant only for laying roads and was not meant for transporting people or goods from place to place. The High Court held that connotation of vehicle itself meant a conveyance for carrying people or goods. The High Court clarified that even though G.O.Ms. No. 75 had been upheld, no tax could be imposed on road rollers.

Therefore any vehicle which is mechanically propelled and which is adapted for use upon roads falls within this definition. Further Section 2(21) defines a "Light Motor Vehicle" as follows:-

"2(21) - "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500] kilograms"

It is to be seen that a road roller is specifically included in the definition of a Light Motor Vehicle. If a road roller is a light motor vehicle then it is a motor vehicle. It is settled law that if the intention of the Legislature is clear and unambiguous, then Courts cannot ignore clear wording and hold to the contrary. As the Act categorically provides that a road roller is a motor vehicle we fail to understand how the High Court, even after noticing the definition, could have held that road roller was not a motor vehicle.

5. Even otherwise, we cannot understand the reasoning of the High Court. Undoubtedly, a road roller is meant for repairing roads. This itself shows that it is adapted for use on roads. A road roller is not capable of being used off road. Merely because its purpose is to repair roads does not mean that it is not suitable or not adapted for use on roads. We fail to understand from where the High Court concludes that the connotation of vehicle must mean a conveyance for carrying people or goods. The definition of motor vehicle does not so provide. Merely because a vehicle does not carry passengers or goods does not mean that it ceases to be a motor vehicle. So long as it is a vehicle, which is mechanically propelled, and is adapted for use on roads, it is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.