9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssis in the State of Maharashtra causing it to be driven on public road. Respondent No.1 thereafter purchased bus body at Nagpur for mounting the same on the chassis, which was entered into State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.1 got the bus registered with the registration authorities namely Regional Transport Office having its registration No. MH31M5270. On 28.11.1996, the Entry Tax Officer levied an entry tax on the chassis because of effecting entry of the chassis from the State of Madhya Pradesh in the State of Maharashtra. Being aggrieved by the levy of the entry tax, respondent No.1 approached the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeal), Nagpur being the first appellate authority challenging the assessment. On 30.05.2005, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Being dissatisfied with the said order passed by the said authority, respondent No.1 further carried the appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai and the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity) decided the Second Appeal on 07.11.2005 and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for passing assessment order afresh. The Tribunal, in its or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur (State of Madhya Pradesh) and the same was utilized for mounting the bus body upon the same. Thus, it was an effort of learned Counsel for respondent No.1 to submit that by mounting the bus body the chassis was consumed as the process ultimately resulted into an altogether different product i.e. motor vehicle and as such respondent No.1 was not required to pay any taxes. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1, in support of his submission, places reliance on a Trade Circular No. 20T of 2001 dated 05.10.2001. He further places reliance on the observations of the Tribunal referring to the word "consumption" which contrasts it with concept of "use" to draw a distinction between two processes. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited .v. State of Maharashtra (reported in 1998 STC 330). 7. In view of these rival submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, we have considered the controversy involved in the present petition. It is not in dispute that the chassis was purchased by respondent No.1 in the State of Madhya Pradesh at Raipur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 3(1) prevalent at that time, reads thus "3(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder, there shall be levied and collected a tax on the purchase value of a motor vehicle, an entry of which is effected into a local area for use or sale therein which is liable for registration ..." The words "for use or sale therein" are substituted by words "for use, consumption, or as the case may be, sale therein" by the amendment of 25.04.2012. 8. Considering the provisions of the Act, we find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Additional GP Mrs. Bharti Dangre that the chassis was bought at Raipur and effected its entry in the State of Maharashtra for causing it to be driven on public road and as such the Assessment Officer has rightly levied the tax. There is also considerable merit in her submission that the Tribunal has totally lost sight of the fact that the term "motor vehicle" refers to and defines in the Act namely the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987 as well as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines "motor vehicle" inclusive of the term "chassis". For better appreciation, we may quote the definition of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchasers, it cannot be said that the running of the chassis on the roads of Andhra Pradesh would attract exemption." The Apex Court also turned down the submission of seeking exemption on the ground that the chassis would be meaningless unless body is attached to it. By considering the provisions of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the Apex Court also refers to the meaning of word "use" in the Oxford Dictionary and observed thus : "To make use of as a means or instrument. To employ for a profitable end, in our view, it is not necessary for a chassis to have a body attached to it before it can be used within the meaning of the Act inasmuch as it can be used by the man who drives it and such use of it on public roads would be enough to attract the levy. Ordinary chassis have bodies attached to them for commercially profitable use but even without a body a chassis can be used and is actually used when it is taken over public roads." We may add here the meaning of word "use" referred to in a "Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary" which is as, "to employ for the accomplishment of a purpose; make use of". 10. Taking into consideration the observations of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers, moterette, motor omnibuses, motor vans, motor lorries and chassis of motor vehicles and bodies or tankers built or meant for mounting on chassis of motor vehicles. Conjoint reading of section 2(1)(i) and section 3(1) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the "purchase value of motor vehicle" means not of the value of only the chassis but of the entire composite vehicle (chassis having a body built thereon) entering the State of Maharashtra. All the authorities under the Act may therefore, note this explicit legal position while deciding the matters before them." 11. Though the learned Counsel for respondent No.1, by referring to the said circular also the judgment of the Tribunal, made an attempt to submit that the chassis is not subjected to any tax, we are unable to accept his submission on more than one counts. Firstly, the Circular dated 05.10.2001 refers to the motor vehicle and the definition refers to it in the Circular is inclusive of chassis of motor vehicle and further that purchase value of a motor vehicle means not of the value of only the chassis but of the entire composite vehicle i.e. chassis having a body built thereon entering the State of Maharashtra. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax. We find that no new facet or process is added to Section 3(1) above by introducing word "consumption" therein for present purposes. Thus the key word of the said Section 3(1) i.e. "use" is kept intact even in the amendment of 2012 and as we have already observed that the word "use" is dealt with in detail by the Apex Court in the case of Automotive Manufacturers (P) Ltd. etc. .v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. (supra), in our opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel Shri A.J. Pathak is devoid of any merits. 13. In view of the above referred considerations, we have no hesitation to say that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts of the matter in proper perspective and as such arrived at an erroneous conclusion. We are of the opinion that the Assessment Officer by considering the purchase value of the chassis, levied the tax by assessment order dated 15.02.2005 and as such the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order impugned in the petition passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Assessment Officer on 15.02.2007 and the order passed by the first appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
