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

1988 Supreme(Ker) 12

Judges : BALAKRISHNA MENON,VARGHESE KALLIATH
UNITED STATES LINES AGENCY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 2365. 9652 of 1987
Decided On : 01/05/1988
Advocates Appeared :
Panicker; Panicker; For Petitioners Government Pleader; For Respondent

The main legal point established is that for a vehicle to be considered a motor vehicle under the M.V. Act and liable for tax under the M.V.T. Act, it should be suitable for use on public roads and specially adapted for use in an enclosed premises.

Headnote:

Tax Levy - Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act - S.3

Fact of the Case:

The case concerns the levy of tax under S.3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. The petitioners are involved in loading and unloading containers/vessels at Cochin Port using specially designed trailers. They argue that these trailers are not motor vehicles under the M.V. Act and therefore not liable for tax under the M.V.T. Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trailers were not motor vehicles within the meaning of S.2(18) of the M.V. Act and were not liable for tax under the M.V.T. Act. The court emphasized that the trailers should be suitable for use on public roads to be considered motor vehicles and that they were specially adapted for use in an enclosed premises.

Issues: The main issue was whether the trailers qualified as motor vehicles under the M.V. Act and were liable for tax under the M.V.T. Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the interpretation of the definition of motor vehicle from previous cases and emphasized that the trailers should be suitable for use on public roads and specially adapted for use in an enclosed premises to be considered motor vehicles.

Final Decision: The court quashed the orders imposing tax and directed the Joint Regional Transport Officer to reconsider the tax liability based on the court's observations.

Judgment :-

1. These two original petitions concern the question of levy of tax under S.3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. 1976. for short the M.V.T. Act. The facts of the two cases are almost identical and so these two cases can be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. We shall now advert to the facts necessary for the disposal of these cases. The petitioners in both these original petitions are doing the business of loading & unloading the containers/vessels reaching the wharf area in Cochin Port. The petitioner in O.P. No 2365 of 1987 is acting as the agents of Sealand Services incorporated in the United States of America. For facilitating loading and unloading the containers/vessels. the petitioner is using chassis (trailer). according to the petitioner. specially designed and adapted for leading and unloading the containers/vessels reaching the Cochin Port. The principal of the petitioner in O.P. No. 2365 of 1987 has imported from Roferdam 105 chassis (trailers) for the above said purpose. The petitioner in O.P No. 9652 of 1987 got permission from the Central Government and Port authorities to import 55 chassis (trailers) from their principal. United States Lines. which is a shipping company using containers for cargo movement. The said 55 chassis also. according to the petitioner in O.P. No. 9352 of 1987. are specially designed and adopted for the use of leading and unloading the containers/vessels reaching the Cochin Port. Further. the case of the petitioner is that these equipments were permitted to be imported to India with an added condition that the same will be re-exported when the Port Trust provides sufficient number of trailers. These trailers in question are. according to the petitioners. used only in the wharf area.

3. The petitioners submit that the wharf area is a private premises. The operation of the trailers. which are specially designed for loading and unloading the containers/vessels. is confined to wharf area only and that it can be used only for the said purpose. They say that the wharf area is a customs bended fully enclosed area.

4. Since the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939. for short the M.V. Act. insisted the petitioners to register these equipments. the petitioners have registered these equipments under S.22 and 38 of the M V. Act. For all these trailers. the petitioners have obtained registration certificates and fitness certificates.

5. The definite case of the petitioners is that the trailers in question are not motor vehicles within the meaning of the definition of motor vehicle both under the M.V. Act and the M.V.T. Act. Certainly. if these trailers are outside the definition of motor Vehicle in the M.V. Act. they will be outside the definition of motor vehicle under the M.V.T. Act also. We say so because there is no separate definition for meter vehicle in the M.V.T. Act. S.2 (m) of the M.V.T. Act provides that "words and expressions used but not defined in this Act shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them is the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (Central Act. 4 of 1939) or the rules made thereunder."

6. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the trailers in question are outside the definition of motor vehicle under the M V. Act. To substantiate this contention. the petitioners have given certain factual details regarding the nature and operation of the trailers. They submit that these trailers are pulled by tractors hired by the petitioners. and operated exclusively in the Port area and the reads within the Port area. Further. the petitioners submit that the Port area and the roads in the Port area are maintained by the Cochin Port Trust and the roads in the Port area should be considered as private premises or private roads particularly in view of S.29 of the Major Port Trusts Act. In order to say that these trailers are specially adapted for the specific use of loading and unloading the containers and not adapted for use on public roads. the petitioner in O P
































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