TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the respondent says, that he does not wish to file a reply and that, he would argue the matter, based on the record. 3. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20.08.2015, whereby, the petitioner has been asked to pay tax and penalty, in the sum of Rs. 8,18,324/-. The petitioner has assailed the said order, on the ground that, no entry tax can be levied on the subject vehicle, operated by the petitioner, which is a JCB Excavator [Model/Chasis No.1773222, Engine No.84063380]. 3.1. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charging Section, which is, Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 (in short the 1990 Act ) woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icles Act, 1939 or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the case may be. [2] The tax shall be payable by an importer in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed." 3.3. Furthermore, in support of her stand, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention, to Section 2(28) of the 1998 Act. The said Sub Section is extracted hereafter, for the sake of convenience. "(28) motor vehicle or vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a specia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the subject vehicle. Thus, in other words, learned counsel for the respondent says that, if, upon physical examination of the subject vehicle, it is concluded that it is a JCB Excavator, as contended by the petitioner, then, surely the case would be covered, by the decision, rendered by this Court in RDS. 7. A perusal of the impugned order, would show that the aspect relating to, whether or not the subject vehicle would be chargeable to Entry Tax, has not been taken into account. This aspect of the matter is critical and therefore, could not have been ignored by the Assessing Officer. 7.1. I may only note, that the impugned order proceeds, on the basis that the JCB Excavator is a motor vehicle, as per provisions of Section 2(i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 2(i) of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Act, 1990 as follows: Motor vehicle' means a motor vehicle as defined in clause (28) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988." Thus, it could be seen that the State Legislature has adopted the definition of "motor vehicle" as defined under sub-section (28) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows : "Motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads, whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a Supreme Today With All High Courts Page 2 of 3 chassis to which a body has not been attached and a tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous types of dumpers have also been sent to us which indicate prominently one factor that these dumpers run on tyres, in marked contrast to chain plates like caterpillars or military tanks. By the use of rubber tyres it is evident that they have been adapted for use on roads, which means they are suitable for being used on public roads." (emphasis supplied) The above decisions would categorically show that the apex Court has made a distinction between vehicles fitted with chain plates like caterpillars and military tanks and others. The excavator referred to in Bose Abraham's case [2001] 121 STC 614 (SC) was a motor vehicle fitted with inflated tyres and not chain plates like caterpillars or military tanks. The excavator in que....