Scrap mobile crane not a motor vehicle under the Act, so tax demand and detention could not stand.

A scrap mobile crane that was old, unserviceable and movable only by towing was held not to fall within the definition of a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Because it was not designed for road use by its own propulsion and was not meant for transportation on road, the tax demand could not be sustained and seizure or detention was unjustified. The result was that the tax levy and detention were held illegal, and relief was granted to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether a scrap mobile crane, incapable of being driven on its own mechanical power and capable of movement only by towing, falls within the definition of a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and whether the authorities were justified in levying tax and detaining it.

Analysis: The scrap mobile crane was found to be old, unserviceable and purchased as scrap. It was not designed for use on roads by its own propulsion and was not meant for transportation on road. Since it could be shifted only by towing and was not a vehicle adapted for road use within the statutory definition, it did not answer the description of a motor vehicle. On that basis, the demand for tax and the action of seizure and detention could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The scrap mobile crane was not a motor vehicle within Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the tax demand and detention were illegal. The petition was therefore allowed in favour of the petitioner.

---