TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (4) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Union of India and its officers are the common appellants herein. Shortly put, the fourt writ petitioners before the Judicial Commissioner, the respondents herein, were carrying on mining operatons in certain areas in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. Thereat they had been using various types of mining machinery including dumpers and shovels. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was made applicable in the Union Territory w.e.f. 1.1.1965 and simultaneously the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1965 (hereafter referred to as the 'Taxation Act') was also enforced on that date. The respondents claimed that being under a mistaken belief that their dumpers and shovels were 'motor vehicles' and hence liable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore to be excluded from the purview of the Taxation Act since public roads were not being used by those vehicles. Support for the view was taken from Bolani Ores Ltd. etc. v. State of Orissa etc., [1975] 2 SCR 138. It is to challenge that view that the Union of India and its officers are before us. It may, at the outset, be necessary to differentiate inter se dumpers and shovels. Dumpers denominated as Euclid Dumpers by Writ Petitioners-respondents in three Writ Petitions Nos. 2/69, 12/69, and 48/70, stand well understood and described in Bolani Ores case and in M/s Central Coal Fields Ltd. etc. etc. v. State of Orissa & Ors. etc. etc. decided by this Court today on 29.4.1992. To quote from the later case: "Dumpers and Rockers, ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be used, nor are capable of being used, nor were they, in fact, being used, on roads by the Writ Petitioners for any general use. Still further it was pleaded that shovels were vehicles of a special type adapted for use only within the enclosed premises and not fit for use on roads. These facts were denied by the contesting Government-officers. Reliance for the purpose was made on the definition of 'motor vehicle' used in Section 2(18) of the Act to prove their point of view. The learned Judicial Commissioner drawing no distinction between dumpers and shovels proceeded to grant common relief to all the writ petitioners primarily on the basis that these vehicles were employed for use in the owner's premises. When the Act and the Taxation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able, ceased to be taxable if it was "used solely upon the premises of the owner". That period is not involved here. In the Central Coal Fields case it has been viewed that tax is attracted on the motor vehicle adapted for user of the road, not only for actually using it but for keeping it for use over it, unless it is a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. The respondents claim that their premises are enclosed may not be disputed, but the question still remains whether their vehicles are of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. No type, much less special, stands pleaded by the respondents-writ- petitioners. The obligation under Section 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd hence entitled to a regulatory and compensatory tax. (Exemptions claimable apart)". The view of the learned Judicial Commissioner that when dumpers were being used solely on the premises of the owner, and must therefore be excluded from taxation, militates against the views expressed in the aforesaid two cases of this Court. The mere fact that dumpers were used solely on the premises of the owner, or that they were in closed premises, or permission of the Authorities was needed to move them from one place to another, or that they are not intended to be used or are incapable of being used for general purposes, or that they have an unladen and laden capacity depending on their weight and size, is of no consequence for dumpers are veh....