Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52391
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath, JJ
SATHEESH KUMAR S. – Appellant
Versus
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WA 32/2024
G.HARIHARAN, JOJI GEORGE, JACOB RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN, PRAVEEN.H, K.S.SMITHA, B.R.SINDU, V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
Vehicles modified for construction use are taxable as construction equipment under the KMVT Act, regardless of their initial registration as goods carriages.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 - Section 3 - Taxation of motor vehicles - Appellant challenged orders levying tax at 8% on vehicles classified as construction equipment vehicles instead of goods carriage vehicles - Court held that vehicles with concrete mixers are taxable as construction equipment. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Classification of vehicles - The court emphasized that the classification of vehicles for tax purposes must align with their actual use and statutory definitions, rejecting the appellant's claim based on prior treatment of similar vehicles. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, proprietor of M/s.Nanma Manufactured Sand, contested tax orders treating his goods carriage vehicles as construction equipment due to installed concrete mixers, arguing for a lower tax rate applicable to goods vehicles.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the classification of the vehicles as construction equipment, confirming the tax rate of 8% as appropriate under the KMVT Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the vehicles, registered as goods carriages, could be taxed as construction equipment due to their use and modifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presence of concrete mixers on the vehicles justified their classification as construction equipment, aligning with statutory definitions and tax provisions.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.
This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3697/2022 dated 17/11/2023.
2. The appellant is the proprietor of M/s.Nanma Manufactured Sand situated in Vallakkad at Attingal in Thiruvananthapuram District. He is the registered owner of two goods carriage vehicles bearing Regn.Nos. KL-21V-0707 and KL- 21V-0106. The vehicles were registered under the category of goods carriage. The 3rd respondent passed Exts.P5 and P6 orders directing the appellant to pay tax @8% of the total purchase value of the vehicles, treating the vehicles as construction equipment vehicles. The appellant challenged the said orders unsuccessfully before the statutory appellate and revisional authorities. His case is that the vehicles fall under the category of goods vehicles and not construction equipment vehicles, so the tax has to be levied quarterly. Challenging Exts.P5 and P6 orders as well as the orders of appellate and revisional authorities (Exts.P7 and P9), the appellant approached the learned Single Judge. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant uses the vehicle exclusively for construction purposes and the vehicles are liable to be taxed at the rate prescribed for construction equipment vehicles and not for the goods carriage vehicles. 3. We have heard Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicles are registered as goods carriage; therefore, the applicable rate of tax that could be levied is under the category of goods carriage. The learned counsel further submitted that the goods carriage would not come under the category of construction equipment vehicle as defined under the statute, and merely because a concrete mixer is fixed on the vehicle, it cannot be classified as a construction equipment vehicle for the purpose of levy of tax. He also submitted that with respect to similar types of vehicles, the tax was levied under the category of goods carriage, and permits were issued; therefore, differential treatment of the subject vehicles is illegal. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the appellant had fixed the concrete mixer on the chassis of the vehicles, and they are exclusively used for construction purposes and not as goods carriage vehicles; hence, the vehicles are liable to be taxed at the rates specified for construction equipment vehicle.
5. The appellant registered the vehicles as good carriages. After registration, he installed self-concrete mixer machines in both vehicles. The taxation of motor vehicles in the State of Kerala is dealt with under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (for short, the KMVT Act). Section 3 of the said Act reads thus:
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, on and from the date of commencement of this Act, a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State, at the rate specified for such vehicle in the Schedule:
Provided that no such tax shall be levied on a motor vehicle kept by a dealer in, or a manufacturer of, such vehicle, for the purpose of trade and used under the authorization of the trade certificate granted by the registering authority.
Provided further that in respect of new motor vehicle of any of the classes specified in items 1, 2, 6, 7(i)(b), 7(i)(c), 10(iii) and 11(i) of the Schedule, there shall be levied, from the date of purchase of the vehicle, one- time tax at the rates specified in Annexure I, at the time of first registration of the vehicle and thereafter tax shall be levied at the time of renewal of registration of such vehicle or on the expiry of the life time tax already paid at the rate specified in the Schedule 2 [as per the 5th proviso] to sub-section (1) of Section 4.”
6. Going by the second proviso, which was inse
