2003 (11) TMI 579 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a mechanical pavar finisher used for spreading concrete mixed with coal tar on roads is considered a motor vehicle for tax levy under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994?

Analysis:
The respondent, a managing director of a partnership firm engaged in road construction, imported a pavar and was asked to pay entry tax. The respondent claimed the pavar fell under "other machinery" exempted from tax. The single Judge directed a refund, finding the pavar not suitable for road use. The department argued the pavar was a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Act defines a motor vehicle as mechanically propelled for road use. The pavar was transported on a lorry and not registered, leading to the conclusion it was not a motor vehicle.

The department contended the pavar should be registered as a motor vehicle, but evidence showed no such registrations in Kerala. A Supreme Court case cited road rollers and excavators as motor vehicles due to road use and registration. However, the pavar was used for making roads, not on roads, and remained unregistered. The pavar was considered "other machinery" exempt from tax, as per a notification. The Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it without costs.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, examining the arguments presented, legal definitions applied, and the final decision reached by the Court.