https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258939 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. en-us Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Apr 2015 05:52:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258939 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258939