Forklift classification and entry-date based tax liability were addressed, with factual proof required for levy in Gujarat.

Forklifts covered by an earlier Division Bench ruling were treated as motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, so the classification challenge was rejected. On tax liability, the Court held that levy depended on the actual date the vehicles entered Gujarat, not automatically from 01.04.1995. That date was to be proved before the competent authority on relevant material, which would decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. The petition therefore succeeded only in part, leaving retrospective tax liability to be determined on factual proof of entry into the State.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the forklifts in question were motor vehicles within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. (ii) Whether tax could be levied retrospectively from 01.04.1995 or only from the date on which the vehicles were actually brought into the State of Gujarat.

Issue (i): Whether the forklifts in question were motor vehicles within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Analysis: The forklifts falling at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 11 were covered by the earlier Division Bench decision, which had already treated such forklifts as motor vehicles. The Court followed that position and declined to reopen the classification issue in this petition.

Conclusion: The challenge that those forklifts were not motor vehicles was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether tax could be levied retrospectively from 01.04.1995 or only from the date on which the vehicles were actually brought into the State of Gujarat.

Analysis: The Court held that liability to tax depended upon the actual date on which the vehicles entered the State. That date was treated as a factual question to be established before the appropriate authority on the basis of relevant material and inquiry. The petitioner was permitted to place such material before the authority, which was required to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law.

Conclusion: Retrospective levy from 01.04.1995 was not finally accepted as such, and the tax liability was directed to be determined from the actual date of entry of the vehicles into the State, subject to proof before the authority.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only in part. The forklift classification challenge failed, while the question of retrospective tax liability was left to be determined by the competent authority on the basis of the petitioner's evidence regarding the date of entry of the vehicles into Gujarat.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the classification of a vehicle has already been settled by binding precedent, the Court will not reopen it in writ proceedings, and tax liability depending on the date of entry into the State must be determined on the basis of factual proof before the competent authority.

---