2015 (1) TMI 529 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms Tribunal: vehicles subject to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Saurashtra Cement Co. Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat & 3

Saurashtra Cement Co. Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat & 3 - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the vehicles in question (dumpers, loaders, escort cranes, and maintenance van) are 'motor vehicles' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. Whether these vehicles are subject to motor vehicle tax.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the vehicles in question are 'motor vehicles' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:The primary issue for consideration was whether the following vehicles could be classified as 'motor vehicles' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thus be subject to motor vehicle tax:- Haulpack No.2 to Haulpack No.9- HM10 and HM11- Wheel Loader 2021, 2071, and 7271- Escort Crane MOC3.5 and 8100- Maintenance Van 1210BThe petitioner contended that these vehicles should not be classified as 'motor vehicles' and therefore should not be subject to motor vehicle tax. However, the respondent argued that this issue was no longer res integra due to a previous decision by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Reliance Industries Limited vs. State of Gujarat & Others, which had already determined that similar vehicles were 'motor vehicles.'The court referred to the decision in Reliance Industries Limited, where the Division Bench had analyzed the definition and usage of 'dumpers,' 'loaders,' and 'escort cranes,' concluding that they fell within the definition of 'motor vehicles.' Specifically:- Dumpers: The Division Bench noted that dumpers are designed for carrying bulk material and are usually mounted on rubber tires, making them adapted for use on roads. Thus, they cannot be excluded from the definition of 'motor vehicle.'- Loaders: Loaders, used for earth moving and fitted with rubber tires, were also found to be adapted for use on roads, hence classified as 'motor vehicles.'- Escort Cranes: Similarly, escort cranes were considered 'motor vehicles' due to their adaptability for road use.Regarding the Maintenance Van, the petitioner could not present any contrary decision or argument to dispute its classification as a 'motor vehicle.' The court, therefore, upheld the Tribunal's decision that the maintenance van is also a 'motor vehicle.'2. Whether these vehicles are subject to motor vehicle tax:Given that the vehicles were classified as 'motor vehicles,' the next issue was whether they were subject to motor vehicle tax. The court reiterated the broad propositions from the Reliance Industries Limited case to determine if a vehicle is adapted for road use:- The vehicle's size, dimensions, weight, and normal usage are relevant factors.- Regular use on the road is not necessary; the capability for road use suffices.- Exceeding dimensions specified in rules does not exclude a vehicle from being a 'motor vehicle.'- Vehicles adapted for use 'only' in a factory or enclosed premises are excluded from the definition.- The presence of pneumatic or rubber tires is an indication of adaptability for road use.Applying these principles, the court concluded that the vehicles in question were rightly considered 'motor vehicles' and subject to motor vehicle tax. The court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the petition, discharging the rule and vacating any interim relief.Conclusion:The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the vehicles in question are 'motor vehicles' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and are subject to motor vehicle tax. The petition was dismissed, and the interim relief was vacated.