Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

hold areas, of a variety. But instantly we are concerned directly with two of them, i.e., Dumpers of various denominations, and Rockers, which seemingly are similar to Dumpers but are heavier than those. Dumpers and Rockers, are known to carry bulk goods, building materials, mining products, agricultural and forestry products, earth, bricks, concrete, mortar, etc., their structure being of a simple design and easy to handle. Tripping is performed by releasing the locking device retaining tipping body. The Dumper requires no more than a few seconds for the emptying of its tipping body and gives no trouble to the driver when being operated on uphill or downhill roads, with its load with its load unbalanced or when the load refuses to slide out easily. The description of the aforesaid machines have been taken from Bolani Ores case.

The claims of the appellants before the High Court were:-

(a) For declaring that the amending Taxation Act is ultra vires, inoperative and invalid;

(b) For injuncting the opposite parties from imposing any tax on the petitioners' Dumpers, Rockers, etc. and from realising the same in purported exercise of their powers under the impugned Amending Taxation Act; and

(c) For refund of tax paid under protest for the period from 1.10.1974 to 31.3.1975.

All the asked for reliefs were declined by the High Court. The High Court relied on the penultimate paragraph of the judgment in Bolani Ores case to conclude that this Court had indirectly decided that Dumpers and Rockers, if brought upon public roads would be liable to be taxed even under the pre-amended provisions. In other words, what the High Court meant was that as long as Dumpers and Rockers kept working solely within the premises of the respective owners they did not come within the grip of the Taxation Act. But if and when they would get to public roads, they would be taxable under the Taxation Act; since registrable they otherwise were. The High Court took the view that the onus lay on the appellants to establish that Dumpers and Rockers in question were not suitable for use on the public roads. The High Court also viewed that since no material had been place before them to establish this particular, and no claim had even been laid that these vehicles could not operate on public roads, the contention of the appellants that the vehicles were not liable for taxation being not adapted or fit or suitable for use on the roads was devoid of merit. The High Court also held that the amending Taxation Act was within the legislative competence of the State legislature, which was empowered to impose taxes, regulatory and compensatory in nature, no vehicles which are suitable for use on public roads. The challenge to retrospectivity of the impugned Act was also turned down.

Reverting back to Bolani Ores case, it would be found that the pre-amendment definition of Section 2(18) conveyed that though they were motor vehicles as such, within the meaning of the first part of the definition, but nonetheless were not so because of their specified user, i.e., if they were used solely upon the premises of the owner. It would also found that under the post-amendment definition, though a motor vehicle may be adapted for use upon roads, nonetheless in order to be taken out of the category it had further to be adapted for use only in a factory or in any other premises. But here no new facts have been pleaded by the appellants before the High Court as to how the Dumper/Rocker was a vehicle of a special type, adapted for use only in a factory or in any other premises. When Dumpers and Rockers were held registrable by this Court under the ACt, it commended to this Court to hold that Dumpers and Rockers were definedly motor vehicles adapted for use upon roads, as otherwise they would have been held not so within the meaning of `motor vehicle'. Rather the case of Bolani Ores (one of the appellants before us) then pointedly pleaded was that Dumpers were used for transporting ore from the mining faces to the crushing and screening plant or from head mine stock pile to near railway siding. Dumpers were thus shown to be vehicle engaged in the transport of goods.

It would be appropriate now to mention that some documentary material was sent to us by the appellants by means of an affidavit after we had reserved judgment. That material is suggestive of the fact that Dumpers in some States are granted permission to run on public roads at a speed not exceeding 16 kms. per hour and on bridges and culverts at a speed not exceeding 8 kms. per hour. From this it is suggested that they have a minimum weight and safe laden weight fixed on some principles. Pictures of various types of Dumpers have also been sent to us which indicate prominently one factor that these Dumpers run on tyres, in marked contrast to chain plates like cater pillers or military tanks. By the use of rubber tyres it is evident that they have been adapted for use on roads, which means they are suitable for being used on public roads. The mere fact that they are required at places to run at a particular speed is not to detract from the position otherwise clear that they are adapted for use on roads. The very nature of these vehicles make it clear that they are not manufactured or adapted for use only in factories or enclosed premises. The mere fact that the Dumpers or Rockers as suggested are heavy and cannot move on the roads without damaging them is not to say that they are not suitable for use on roads. The word `adapted' in the provision was read as `suitable' in Bolani Ores case by interpretation on the strength of the language in Entry 57, List-II of the Constitution. Thus on that basis it was idle to contend on behalf of the appellants that Dumpers and Rockers were neither adaptable nor suitable for use on public roads.