SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Ker) 74

Judges : K.G.BALAKRISHNAN,D.SREEDEVI
Bose Abraham - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : W.A. Nos. 1289,1374 etc. of 1997
Decided On : 02/25/1997
Advocates Appeared :
M. Ramesh Chander, M. Vijayakumar, V. Ramkumar, Santhosh S.& C.K. Sherin For Appellants S. Vijayan Nair For Respondents

Excavators and road rollers are considered as motor vehicles and liable to pay entry tax.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S.2(28) - Excavators and road rollers are considered as motor vehicles. ENTRY TAX ACT - S.3 - Appellants are liable to pay entry tax on entry of the vehicles into the State of Kerala.

Fact of the Case:

Appellants raised three questions for adjudication.

Finding of the Court:

Learned single judge passed judgment against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Excavators and road rollers are considered as motor vehicles and liable to pay entry tax. Registration authority can insist on payment of entry tax as a condition precedent for registering the vehicles. Amount paid as Central Sales Tax can be deducted under the Entry Tax Act.

Result: Judgment of the learned single judge is confirmed with modification.

Judgment :-

Sreedevi, J.

Appellants in the above appeals who are the petitioners in the writ petitions raised three questions for adjudication. The first question is whether the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles under S.2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. act), (2) whether the Registering authorities can insist on payment of entry tax as a condition precedent for registering the said vehicles and (3) whether the Central Sales Tax paid can be deducted under S.4(2) of the Kerala Taxation on Entry of the Motor Vehicles into Local areas Act (hereinafter referred to as the Entry Tax act).

2. The learned single judge heard the above writ petitions and passed the impugned common judgment whereby the first two questions were answered against the petitioners. The learned judge held that the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles and as such they are liable to be taxed as per the Entry Tax Act, that the amount paid as Central Sales Tax by any of the petitioners for purchase of the vehicles is liable to be deducted from the amount which they are liable to pay under the Entry Tax Act. The petitioners were directed to pay the entry tax within one month from 31.7.1996. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners preferred these appeals.

3. Before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants challenged the judgment on many grounds.

4. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the appellants, we may analyse the various provisions relating to the Entry Tax Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. The first part of S.3 of the Kerala Taxation on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local areas Act, Act XV of 1994, provides as follows:

"Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be levied and collected a tax on the entry of any motor vehicle into any local area for use or sale there in which is liable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988)."

From the above provision, it is clear that Motor Vehicles are liable to pay entry tax on its entry into the local area for use or sale therein which is liable for registration in the State under the M.V. Act.

5. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles. S.2(28) of the M.V. Act defines Motor Vehicles 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 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 special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding thirty five cubic centimeters".

It is an admitted fact that excavators and road rollers are mechanically propelled vehicles. So, the next question is whether these vehicles are 'adapted for use on roads'.

6. The meaning of the word 'adapted' in S.2(18) of the old Act has to be interpreted as 'is suitable or is fit for use on the roads'. The Supreme Court in Bolani Ores v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 17, has interpreted the word 'adapted' as follows:

"The meaning of the word 'adapted' in S.2(18) of the Act is itself indicated in entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which confers a power on the State to tax vehicles whether propelled mechanically or not and uses the word 'suitable' in relation to its use on the roads. The words adapted for use' must therefore, be construed as "suitable for use'. At any rate, words 'adapted for use' cannot be larger in their import by including vehicles which are not suitable for use on roads. In this sense, the words "is adapted' for use have the same connotation as 'is suitable' or 'is fit' for use on roads".

The expression 'suitable for use on roads' came up for considera



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top