2011 (7) TMI 1043 - HC - Indian Laws

Whether the vehicles in question would be covered within the meaning of motor vehicle under section 2(28) of the Act? Held that - We are informed that in all these petitions under different orders the petitioners have paid part of the tax dues and given bank guarantees or security for the remaining amount. Accordingly in all the categories of vehicles where we have held that they are not motor vehicles whatever tax the State might have collected shall have to be refunded. In categories were we have concluded that the vehicles are motor vehicles the petitioners shall have to pay the remaining tax. In case where we have permitted further inquiry the tax liability shall be concluded only after such inquiry is over. Subject to the above directions and clarification all petitions are disposed of with a further direction that wherever the respondents have to refund the tax already collected the same shall bear simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of collection till refund. Similarly in cases where the petitioners have to pay the unpaid dues such dues shall also carry simple interest at the rate of 9% from the date of tax liability arose till actual payment.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the vehicles in question fall under the definition of 'motor vehicle' as per Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Whether the vehicles are adapted for use on roads.
3. Whether the vehicles are construction equipment vehicles as defined under Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
4. Whether the vehicles are special types adapted for use only in factory or enclosed premises.
5. The applicability of road tax to the vehicles in question.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition of 'Motor Vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the MV Act:
The court examined whether the vehicles in question fall under the definition of 'motor vehicle' as per Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The definition includes any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads but excludes vehicles adapted for use only in factories or enclosed premises. The court noted that the vehicles in question, such as crawler cranes, dumpers, loaders, and road rollers, are mechanically propelled and could be considered for use on roads.

2. Adapted for Use on Roads:
The court assessed whether the vehicles are adapted for use on roads by considering their size, dimensions, weight, and other factors. Vehicles like crawler cranes, which are chain-mounted and have significant dimensions and weight, were found to be unsuitable for road use due to their inability to travel on roads without causing damage or posing safety risks. Conversely, vehicles like dumpers and loaders, which are mounted on rubber tires and can be driven on roads, were deemed adapted for road use.

3. Construction Equipment Vehicles under Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules:
The court evaluated whether the vehicles qualify as construction equipment vehicles as per Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which includes vehicles like excavators, loaders, and mobile cranes designed for off-highway operations but capable of traveling on public roads. The court found that many of the vehicles in question, such as dumpers and loaders, fit this category and are thus subject to road tax.

4. Special Type Vehicles Adapted for Use Only in Factory or Enclosed Premises:
The court examined whether the vehicles are of a special type adapted for use only in factory or enclosed premises. Vehicles that are not adapted for road use, such as certain large crawler cranes, were categorized as special type vehicles and excluded from the definition of 'motor vehicle.' However, vehicles that can be used on roads, even if primarily used in factories, do not qualify for this exclusion.

5. Applicability of Road Tax:
The court determined the applicability of road tax based on the classification of the vehicles. Vehicles found to be adapted for road use and not falling within the exclusion for special type vehicles were held liable for road tax. The court also addressed the issue of tax demand from the date of purchase versus the date of entry into the state, clarifying that tax should be levied from the date of entry or interception by authorities.

Conclusion:
The court categorized the vehicles into three groups based on their suitability for road use:
- Category A: Vehicles not adapted for road use (e.g., large crawler cranes) and not liable for road tax.
- Category B: Vehicles adapted for road use (e.g., dumpers, loaders) and liable for road tax.
- Category C: Vehicles requiring further inquiry to determine their suitability for road use and tax liability.

The court directed the authorities to conduct further inspections for vehicles in Category C and to levy tax accordingly. It also ordered the refund of tax collected for vehicles not liable for road tax, with interest, and clarified that tax should be levied from the date of entry into the state.