Skip to content


Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. the Regional Transport Officer and Taxation Officer and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 935 of 1974
Judge
Reported in1980WLN(UC)375
AppellantBirla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
RespondentThe Regional Transport Officer and Taxation Officer and anr.
Cases ReferredBolani Ores Ltd v. State of Orissa
Excerpt:
motor vehicles act, 1939 - sections 2(18) & 22 and rajasthan motor vehicles taxation act, 1951--dumpers & tractor-trolly are registerable bat are not 'motor vehicles' so long they are used in premises of petitioner--held, they are not liable to tax.;the dumpers and tractor-trolly are compulsorily registerable under section 22 of the motor vehicles act. yet for the purpose of imposition of tax under the taxation act, the earlier definition contained in section 2(18) of the motor vehicles act shall be considered to have adopted in the provisions of the taxation act and as such the aforesaid vehicles of the petitioner are not 'motor vehicles' for the purpose of the taxation act and are not liable to imposition of tax so long as they are used solely within the premises of the..........aforesaid vehicle, demanding delivers of a declaration and also payment of tax under the rajasthan motor vehicles taxation act, 1951 in respect of the said vehicles. toe petitioner objected to payment of tax on the ground that the dumpers, and tractor-trolly were not 'motor vehicles' within the definition continued in section 2(18) of the motor vehicles act and were not liable to payment of tax under the rajasthan motor vehicle taxation act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the taxation act') in the case of birla cement works, the regional transport officer-cum taxation officer, udaipur by has order dated january 4, 1972, held that dumpers as well as tractor trolly came within the definition of 'motor vehicles' and were compulsorily registerable under section 22 of the motor vehicles act.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner company is the owner of eight dumo(sic)rs and a tractor cum trolly. The Regional Transport Officer & Taxation Officer, Udaipur, gave notice to the petitioner, as owner of the aforesaid vehicle, demanding delivers of a declaration and also payment of tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 in respect of the said vehicles. Toe petitioner objected to payment of tax on the ground that the dumpers, and tractor-trolly were not 'motor vehicles' within the definition continued in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act and were not liable to payment of tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Taxation Act') In the case of Birla Cement Works, the Regional Transport Officer-cum Taxation Officer, Udaipur by has order dated January 4, 1972, held that dumpers as well as tractor trolly came within the definition of 'motor vehicles' and were compulsorily registerable under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act Moreover, he held that the aforesaid vehicles were liable to payment of tax under the Taxation Act from April 1, 1972 or from the date of purchase, which ever was later. A similar order was passed by the Regional Transport Officer cum-Taxation Officer, Udaipur on March 1, 1974 in the case of the petitioner, after hearing the council for the petitioner and it was held shall all the eight dumpers were liable to re registration and were also liable to payment of tax under the Taxation Act. Tae petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Appeals) II, Rajasthan, Jaipur. But before the appeals could be decided by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the Court.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the dumpers and tractor-trolly are not 'motor vehicles' as they do not crime within the definition of 'motor-vehicles', as given in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that they are not liable to payment of tax under the Taxation Act as they are used solely for the purpose of carrying goods within the premises of the owner and as such the orders passed by the Regional Transport Officer-cum-Taxation Officer regarding payment of Tax under the Taxation Act and penalty are illegal and liable to be set aside.

3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Transport Commissioner was decided on September 30, 1975 and a copy o his order has been produced before this Court. The Deputy Transport Commissioner has held that dumpers as well as tractor-trolly owned by the petitioner fell within the amended definition of 'motor vehicles', as contained in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the vehicles of the petitioner are liable to be compulsorily registered under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, He however, held that the dumpers as well as tractor-trolly are used by the petitioner within the enclosed premises of the factory. As regards the dumpers he held that they were not liable to imposition of tax under the Taxation Act as they are not plied on pubic toads but on the premises of the owner. With regard to the tractor-trolly, it was held that it was liable to be taxed under the Taxation Act. Thus, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Transport Commissioner partially accepted and the petitioner was directed to get the dumpers and the tractor trolly registered under the Motor Vehicles Act within a period of 30 days from the date of his order. The tax payable under the Taxation Act along with penalty imposed in respect of dampers was also set aside and the notice for payment of Rs. 84,124/- as tax and penalty in respect of eight dumpers was quashed. However, the imposition of tax along with penalty in respect of the tractor trolly was maintained.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the dumpers as well as the tractor-trolly are used by the petitioner for the purpose of bringing lime-stone from the quarries to the crushing plant in the factory or taking diesel and order lubricants from tae factory of the petitioner to the quarries. According to the petitioner, these vehicles are not plied on public, roads nor they are used or kept for use in any public place but they are used solely on the premises of the owner and plied only over private roads inside the premises of the petitioner, specially constructed for the purpose of connecting the factory of the petitioner to the quarries. The petitioner's case further is that the entry to the factory and other premises is restricted ingress and eggress in such premises is not open to the public, in which the dumpers and the tractor-trolly are used.

5 A similar case camp up before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bolani Ores Ltd v. State of Orissa : [1975]2SCR138 , wherein the provisions of the Taxation Acts of Orissa and Mysore State were considered by their Lordships, which are almost similar to the provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bolani Ores' case : [1975]2SCR138 held that after the amendment of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the Amending Act No. 100 of 1956, dumpers fell within the definition of motor vehicle's and as such they were compulsorily registerable under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, however, held that the definition of 'motor vehicles' as originally contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, was adopted in the Taxation Acts, so that the definition which existed at the time it was adopted in the Taxation Act would prevail. The Supreme Court in Bolani Ores case rejected the contention that the amended definition of motor vehicles, contained in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, after its amendment by Act No. 100 of 1956, should be considered to have been incorporated in the Taxation Acts.

6. The crux of the matter is that the Taxation Act is a regulatory measure imposing compensatory taxes for the purpose of raising revenue, to meet the expenditure for making roads, maintaining them and for facilitating the movement and regulation of traffic. As such, it was not the purpose of the Taxation Act to levy taxes on vehicles which did not use public roads. Therefore, it was not the purpose of Taxation Yet to impose tax oh vehicles which were used solely upon the premises of the owner and were not plied on public roads, which was required to be regulated. In view of the fact that the vehicles were plying by the owners on their own premises, the dumpers could not be held liable to be taxed under the Taxation Act.

7. So far of the tractors are concerned, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that they could neither be used for carrying goods nor they could be used for carrying passenger and as such they did not require registration under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Bat what has been held by their Lordships in respect of tractors simpliciter cannot be made applicable when a trolly or trailer is attached to a tractor. In the present case, the appellate authority has found that the tractor-trolly of the petitioner was a combination, where a trolly was attached to a tractor. As such it became a goods vehicle, as the tractor attached with a trolly is used for the purpose of carrying goods. The petitioner has himself admitted in para 4 of the writ petition that the 'tractor' (the word employed for his tractor-trolly) is used inside the premises of the petitioner factory and the leased area, for the transportation of limestone from the quarries to the crushing plant in the cement factory. Thus, when the tractor it attached with a trolly or trailer it clearly falls within the definitions of a goods vehicle. And becomes compulsorily registerable under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, which has been accepted by the appellate authority, the dumpers as well as the tractor-trolly are used by the petitioner within the enclosed premises of his factory. Merely because the tractor-trolly is fitted with pneumatic tyres and is capable of being used on public roads, is cannot be held to be taxable under the Taxation Act, until it is used solely on the 'petitioner's own premises, although it falls within the definition of a motor vehicle. In my view, no distinction can be made between dumpers and the tractor-trolly, in the case of the petitioner, as all these vehicles are solely used, according to the averments made by the petitioner and accepted by the appellate authority within the premises of the owner and are used for the purpose of transportation of lime-stone from the quarries to she crushing plant in the cement factory and for carrying diesel and other lubricants from the factory to the quarries. As held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court In Bolani Ore's case, the definition of motor vehicle's as contained in Section 2(18) of the Act, at the time when it was adopted in the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1951, shall be applicable so far as the Taxation Act is concerned and as the dumpers and tractor-trolly are solely used upon the premises of the owner, they cannot be included within that definition of 'motor vehicle'. Thus, although for the purposes of registration of the vehicle, the amended definition contained in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act (as amended by Act No 100 of 1956) shall be applicable and all the vehicles of the petitioner, namely, the dumpers and tractor-trolly are compulsorily registerable under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Yet for the purpose of imposition of tax under the Taxation Act, the earlier definition contained in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be considered to have been adopted in the provisions of the Taxation Act and as such the aforesaid vehicles of the petitioner are not 'motor vehicles' to the purpose of the Taxation Act and are not liable to imposition of tax, so long at they are used solely within the premises of the petitioner.

8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part and the demand raised against the petitioner regarding tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 in respect of 8 dumpers and the tractor-trolly and also the penalty imposed in respect thereof, is quashed. The eight dumpers and tractor-trolly belonging to the petitioner are although compulsorily registerable under the Motor Vehicles Act yet the same are not taxable under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, so long as they are used solely within the premises of the petitioner. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this writ petition.

9. The petitioner was directed to furnish a bank guarantee of a Scheduled Bank in the sum of Rs. 95,000/- by the order of this Court dated March 29, 1974 passed on the stay application. As the writ petition succeeds in respect of the payment of Taxation Act and the penalty imposed thereon, the Bank Guarantee is discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //